Societal Integration of Latvian Russian-Speaking Populations: Feminist and Bourdieu-Based Approaches

• In Event: The Baltic Russophone Identity in Flux: Political Behavior, Boundary Making, and Media Practices

Abstract

After the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, states across the former Soviet Union feared they might be next on the list. Many states saw the ease of Russian operations in Ukraine being possible due to the assistance of loyal Russian speaking populations in the area (Bergmane, 2020). Latvia began efforts to curb the influence of Russia on the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia known as the Krievi Latvijā. Russian media and state sources were quick to highlight what they described as exclusionary policies to a repressed Russian minority (TASS, 2018). This reaction could be seen as use of “Responsibility to Protect” norms set forth by the United States, as a means to justify the activity of Russia in their near abroad. Societies must take action to protect their selves in an environment where information technology reduces the cost and increases the impact of psychological trauma, whether coordinated or organically emerging. While protecting Latvia from the malign influence of Russia, the Government of Latvia must ensure its own protections do not lead to an opening for further disruptive interference. Restrictions to Russian language are not only a possible new vector of risk; they can also be seen as a risk to the legitimate rights of Krievi Latvijā. To prevent a self-fulfilling prophecy, this research asks: What are the possibilities for the Latvian state to ethically recreate its identity regarding ethno-linguistic Russian minority to remove the vector of its destruction through possible Russian malign activities? A short historical review of the geographic, ethnic, cultural, and security of the region demonstrates the resilience of Latvian identity through its reimagining and deliberate creation. The factors leading to Latvian resiliency are critical to ensuring its survival in the future. Through the postmodern perspectives of Tickner’s feminism and Bourdieu’s sociology, a set of recommend solutions for future exploration are posited. While these proposals are not validated through full research yet, they demonstrate how a more visibly inclusive integrative approach could solidify Krievi Latvijā positions in the larger Latvian “social field,” reducing vulnerability to Latvian identity and physical security from external threats.

Short Bio

Colonel, U.S. Army
Public Policy and PIPS Fellow
Lecturer of International Security
College of William & Mary

Author

• Nathan Colvin, Old Dominion University