In-group and Out-group: Dynamics of the «Russia – West» Social Distance Online and Offline
Research Article
How to Cite
Sikevich Z.V., Fedorova A.A. 2021. In-group and Out-group: Dynamics of the «Russia – West» Social Distance Online and Offline — Sociologicheskaja nauka i social’naja praktika. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 78-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/snsp.2021.9.4.8608
Abstract
The article reveals a theoretical and empirical study of the social distance symbolic scale expressing “in-group” – “out-group” perceptions, expressed in the oppositions “Russia” – “West”, “Russian men – Western men”. According to our observations, the opposition has a negative connotation, which is expressed in a system of geopolitical and mental biases. Through systematic analysis of the geopolitical and mental distancing phenomenon, a complementary system for evaluating individual and collective representations of Russian-speaking respondents in real and virtual spaces is proposed. The authors conducted a controlled Internet survey of 600 people based on a quota sample by gender, age, and level of education; the structure of the sample allowed for a comparative study in the form of a nonreactive study within10 largest ethnic Russian communities of the social network “VKontakte”. As a result of a comprehensive study, it is established, in particular, that the opposition “Russia – West” is unchanged in the historical perspective from 1995 to 2020 and shows negative dynamics, over time acquiring the traits of an increasingly tough confrontation. Economic perceptions of the West’s attitude towards Russia are replaced mainly by the geopolitical perception of relations, due to the dominant “power” attitudes of the survey participants. As it turned out on an empirical level, the system of traditional values inherent in Russian society is opposed to Western postmodern values, and the image of the state at the level of value representations directly correlates with the image of the people, whose perception, along with geopolitics, is influenced by various cultural norms that distinguish Russians from Europeans. The gender and age characteristics of the survey participants determine the content of the answers to a minimal extent, which indirectly indicates the integrity of the image of the West at the level of the national identity of Russians.
Keywords:
social distance, symbolic scale, prejudice, geopolitical representation, mental representation, social attitude, traditional value, cultural norm, gender and age characteristics, national identity
References
1. Arutyunyan Yu. V., Drobizheva L. M, Susokolov A. A. (1999). Etnosotsiologiya. [Ethnosociology]. M. : Aspekt-press publ. 272 p. (In Russ.).
2. Blumer G. (2017). Simvolicheskii interaktsionizm. Perspektiva i metod. [Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and method]. M. : Elementarnye formy publ. (In Russ.).
3. Drobizheva L. M. (2011). Rossiiskaya identichnost’ i tendentsii v mezhetnicheskikh ustanovkakh za 20 let reform. [Russian identity and trends in interethnic relations over 20 years of reforms]. Rossiya reformiruyuschayasya : Ezhegodnik-2011. Ed. by M. K. Gorshkov. Vyp. 10. M. ; SPb. : Institut sotsiologii RAN ; Nestor-Istoriya publ. P. 72–85. (In Russ.).
4. Evgen’eva T. V., Smul’kina N. V., Tsymbal I. A. (2020). Mesto Rossii v mire v vospriyatii ryadovykh grazhdan: identifikatsionnoe izmerenie. [The place of Russia in the world in the perception of ordinary citizens: an identification dimension]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. № 4. P. 181–191. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.04.13. (In Russ.).
5. Zimmel’ G. (2017). Izbrannoe. Problemy sotsiologii. [Favorites. Problems of sociology.]. M. ; SPb. : Tsentr gumanitarnykh initsiativ publ. 416 p. (In Russ.).
6. Identichnost’ i tolerantnost’. (2002). [Identity and tolerance]. Ed. by N. M. Lebedeva. M. : Institut etnologii i antropologii im. N. . Miklukho-Maklaya RAN publ. 416 s. (In Russ.).
7. Levkovich V. P., Andruschak I. B. (1995). Etnotsentrizm kak sotsial’no-psikhologicheskii fenomen (na materiale etnicheskikh grupp Uzbekistana). [Ethnocentrism as a socio-psychological phenomenon (based on the material of ethnic groups of Uzbekistan)]. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal. Vol. 16, № 2. P. 70–81. (In Russ.).
8. Matsumoto D. Psikhologiya i kul’tura. (2003). [Psychology and culture.]. M. ; SPb. : Piter publ. 416 p. (In Russ.).
9. Mid D. G. (2009). Izbrannoe : Sb. perevodov. [Favorites: collection of translations]. Ed. by D. V. Efremenko. M. : INION RAN publ. 290 p. (In Russ.).
10. Olport G. (2003). Tolerantnaya lichnost’. [Tolerant personality]. Vek tolerantnosti. № 6. P. 39–50. (In Russ.).
11. Psikhologiya politicheskogo vospriyatiya v sovremennoi Rossii : materialy kruglogo stola. (2013). [Psychology of political perception in modern Russia: materials of the round table]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 12. Politicheskie nauki. № 6. S. 106–126. (In Russ.).
12. Ryzhova S. V. (2011). Etnicheskaya identichnost’ v kontekste tolerantnosti. [Ethnic identity in the context of tolerance.]. M. : Al’fa-M publ. 280 p. (In Russ.).
13. Sikevich Z. V. (2018). Etnicheskie predubezhdeniya kak osnova proyavleniya intolerantnosti. [Ethnic prejudices as the basis for the manifestation of intolerance]. Gumanitarii Yuga Rossii. Vol. 7, № 2. P. 36–53. DOI: 10.23683/2227-8656.2018.2.3. (In Russ.).
14. Sikevich Z. V. (2012). Etnicheskie paradoksy i kul’turnye konflikty rossiiskogo obschestva. [Ethnic paradoxes and cultural conflicts of Russian society.]. SPb. : SPbGU publ. 207 p. (In Russ.).
15. Sikevich Z. V., Krokinskaya O. K, Possel’ Yu. A. (2005). Sotsial’noe bessoznatel’noe: sotsiologicheskii i sotsial’no-psikhologicheskii aspekty. [Social unconscious: sociological and sociopsychological aspects]. Ed. by Z. V. Sikevich. SPb. : Piter publ. 268 p. (In Russ.).
16. Tolerantnost’ i kul’turnaya traditsiya. (2002). [Tolerance and cultural traditions]. Ed. by M. Yu. Martynovoi. M. : Rossiiskii universitet druzhby narodov publ. 447 p. (In Russ.).
17. Triandis G. K. (2007). Kul’tura i sotsial’noe povedenie. [Culture and social behavior]. M. : Forum publ. 384 p. (In Russ.).
18. Shestopal E. B. (2020). Vospriyatie zarubezhnykh stran rossiiskimi grazhdanami. [Perception of foreign countries by Russian citizens]. Obschestvo. Kommunikatsiya. Obrazovanie. Vol. 11, № 4. P. 16–28. DOI: 10.18721/JHSS.11402. (In Russ.).
19. Barth F. (1969). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Boston : Little, Brown and Co. 153 р.
20. Bartolo M., Serividio R. et al. (2020). Multiple identities, social connection and social activism: An explicative model in migrant and Italian adolescents. Ricerche Di Psicologia. Vol. 43, № 1. P. 21. DOI: 10.3280/RIP2020-001003.
21. Bigler R. Liben L. S. (2007). Developmental Intergroup Theory: Explaining and reducing children’s social stereotyping and prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science. № 16 (3). P. 162–166. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00496.x.
22. Cheng J. Y. (2021). How long-distance nationalism shapes ‘us’ preferences of first-generation Taiwanese Americans. Current Sociology. February. № 10. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ abs/10.1177/0011392120983404 (date of access: 01.04.2021). DOI: 10.1177/0011392120983404.
23. De Vos G. (1975). Ethnic pluralism: conflict and accommodation. Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuity and Change. Ed. by G. de Vos, K. Romanucci Ross. Palo Alto (Cal.) : Mayfield. P. 1–25.
24. Konitzer T., Iyengar S, Valentino N, Soroka S. (2018). Ethnocentrism versus group-specific stereotyping in immigration opinion: cross-national evidence on the distinctiveness of immigrant groups. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. № 45 (7). P. 1051–1074. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2018.1431109.
25. Taşdemir N., Öner‐Özkan B. (2015). Definitions of Turkish in‐group boundaries: national participation and essentialism as predictors of inter‐group attitudes in Turkey. Nations and Nationalism. № 22 (1). P. 143–164. DOI: 10.1111/nana.12145.
26. Wilson A. (2020). How variations in behavior and phenotype affect in-group stereotyping and belonging among African American adolescents and emerging adults. Journal of Black Psychology. № 31 (3). P. 237–253.
2. Blumer G. (2017). Simvolicheskii interaktsionizm. Perspektiva i metod. [Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and method]. M. : Elementarnye formy publ. (In Russ.).
3. Drobizheva L. M. (2011). Rossiiskaya identichnost’ i tendentsii v mezhetnicheskikh ustanovkakh za 20 let reform. [Russian identity and trends in interethnic relations over 20 years of reforms]. Rossiya reformiruyuschayasya : Ezhegodnik-2011. Ed. by M. K. Gorshkov. Vyp. 10. M. ; SPb. : Institut sotsiologii RAN ; Nestor-Istoriya publ. P. 72–85. (In Russ.).
4. Evgen’eva T. V., Smul’kina N. V., Tsymbal I. A. (2020). Mesto Rossii v mire v vospriyatii ryadovykh grazhdan: identifikatsionnoe izmerenie. [The place of Russia in the world in the perception of ordinary citizens: an identification dimension]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. № 4. P. 181–191. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.04.13. (In Russ.).
5. Zimmel’ G. (2017). Izbrannoe. Problemy sotsiologii. [Favorites. Problems of sociology.]. M. ; SPb. : Tsentr gumanitarnykh initsiativ publ. 416 p. (In Russ.).
6. Identichnost’ i tolerantnost’. (2002). [Identity and tolerance]. Ed. by N. M. Lebedeva. M. : Institut etnologii i antropologii im. N. . Miklukho-Maklaya RAN publ. 416 s. (In Russ.).
7. Levkovich V. P., Andruschak I. B. (1995). Etnotsentrizm kak sotsial’no-psikhologicheskii fenomen (na materiale etnicheskikh grupp Uzbekistana). [Ethnocentrism as a socio-psychological phenomenon (based on the material of ethnic groups of Uzbekistan)]. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal. Vol. 16, № 2. P. 70–81. (In Russ.).
8. Matsumoto D. Psikhologiya i kul’tura. (2003). [Psychology and culture.]. M. ; SPb. : Piter publ. 416 p. (In Russ.).
9. Mid D. G. (2009). Izbrannoe : Sb. perevodov. [Favorites: collection of translations]. Ed. by D. V. Efremenko. M. : INION RAN publ. 290 p. (In Russ.).
10. Olport G. (2003). Tolerantnaya lichnost’. [Tolerant personality]. Vek tolerantnosti. № 6. P. 39–50. (In Russ.).
11. Psikhologiya politicheskogo vospriyatiya v sovremennoi Rossii : materialy kruglogo stola. (2013). [Psychology of political perception in modern Russia: materials of the round table]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 12. Politicheskie nauki. № 6. S. 106–126. (In Russ.).
12. Ryzhova S. V. (2011). Etnicheskaya identichnost’ v kontekste tolerantnosti. [Ethnic identity in the context of tolerance.]. M. : Al’fa-M publ. 280 p. (In Russ.).
13. Sikevich Z. V. (2018). Etnicheskie predubezhdeniya kak osnova proyavleniya intolerantnosti. [Ethnic prejudices as the basis for the manifestation of intolerance]. Gumanitarii Yuga Rossii. Vol. 7, № 2. P. 36–53. DOI: 10.23683/2227-8656.2018.2.3. (In Russ.).
14. Sikevich Z. V. (2012). Etnicheskie paradoksy i kul’turnye konflikty rossiiskogo obschestva. [Ethnic paradoxes and cultural conflicts of Russian society.]. SPb. : SPbGU publ. 207 p. (In Russ.).
15. Sikevich Z. V., Krokinskaya O. K, Possel’ Yu. A. (2005). Sotsial’noe bessoznatel’noe: sotsiologicheskii i sotsial’no-psikhologicheskii aspekty. [Social unconscious: sociological and sociopsychological aspects]. Ed. by Z. V. Sikevich. SPb. : Piter publ. 268 p. (In Russ.).
16. Tolerantnost’ i kul’turnaya traditsiya. (2002). [Tolerance and cultural traditions]. Ed. by M. Yu. Martynovoi. M. : Rossiiskii universitet druzhby narodov publ. 447 p. (In Russ.).
17. Triandis G. K. (2007). Kul’tura i sotsial’noe povedenie. [Culture and social behavior]. M. : Forum publ. 384 p. (In Russ.).
18. Shestopal E. B. (2020). Vospriyatie zarubezhnykh stran rossiiskimi grazhdanami. [Perception of foreign countries by Russian citizens]. Obschestvo. Kommunikatsiya. Obrazovanie. Vol. 11, № 4. P. 16–28. DOI: 10.18721/JHSS.11402. (In Russ.).
19. Barth F. (1969). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Boston : Little, Brown and Co. 153 р.
20. Bartolo M., Serividio R. et al. (2020). Multiple identities, social connection and social activism: An explicative model in migrant and Italian adolescents. Ricerche Di Psicologia. Vol. 43, № 1. P. 21. DOI: 10.3280/RIP2020-001003.
21. Bigler R. Liben L. S. (2007). Developmental Intergroup Theory: Explaining and reducing children’s social stereotyping and prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science. № 16 (3). P. 162–166. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00496.x.
22. Cheng J. Y. (2021). How long-distance nationalism shapes ‘us’ preferences of first-generation Taiwanese Americans. Current Sociology. February. № 10. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ abs/10.1177/0011392120983404 (date of access: 01.04.2021). DOI: 10.1177/0011392120983404.
23. De Vos G. (1975). Ethnic pluralism: conflict and accommodation. Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuity and Change. Ed. by G. de Vos, K. Romanucci Ross. Palo Alto (Cal.) : Mayfield. P. 1–25.
24. Konitzer T., Iyengar S, Valentino N, Soroka S. (2018). Ethnocentrism versus group-specific stereotyping in immigration opinion: cross-national evidence on the distinctiveness of immigrant groups. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. № 45 (7). P. 1051–1074. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2018.1431109.
25. Taşdemir N., Öner‐Özkan B. (2015). Definitions of Turkish in‐group boundaries: national participation and essentialism as predictors of inter‐group attitudes in Turkey. Nations and Nationalism. № 22 (1). P. 143–164. DOI: 10.1111/nana.12145.
26. Wilson A. (2020). How variations in behavior and phenotype affect in-group stereotyping and belonging among African American adolescents and emerging adults. Journal of Black Psychology. № 31 (3). P. 237–253.
Article
Received: 20.07.2021
Accepted: 02.12.2021
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
Harvard
Sikevich, Z. V. and Fedorova, A. A. (2021) ’In-group and Out-group: Dynamics of the «Russia – West» Social Distance Online and Offline’, Sociologicheskaja nauka i social’naja praktika, 9(4), pp. 78-97. doi: https://doi.org/10.19181/snsp.2021.9.4.8608.
Section
MODERN RUSSIAN SOCIETY
Publisher: Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (FCTAS RAS)