Indigenous Education in Russia: Current Educational Policies vs. Public Views

• In Event: Indigenous and southern voices

Proposal

The last three decades have seen Russia attempting to reform as a multicultural and pluri-ethnic state through the promotion of distinct identities of its diverse ethnic groups. Strengthening of distinct ethnic identities, however, clashes with the simultaneous development of the national Russian identity viewed as necessary for a cohesive nation-building. This formation of a unified and homogenous Russian identity negates plurality and advocates for assimilation of those who are fundamentally different from the dominant ethnic group represented by Russian Slavs. Seeing diversity of identities as a potential threat and a challenge (Tovar-García & Podmazin, 2018), federal policies have largely been shaped around the discourse of assimilation of ethnically non-Russian peoples through the process of Russification at the expense of indigenous identities.

Karelian and Mari peoples are two such groups with distinct indigenous identities, cultures, and languages. The Karelian people represent a significant minority in the Republic of Karelia named after them as they comprise only 7.4% of the population. In contrast, the Mari people who inhabit the Republic of Mari-El amount to 43.9%. Both groups have a special status which nevertheless is being diminished by government policies and cuts in financial and administrative support for minority groups. Assimilation into the Russian language, cultural references, and related standards enforced through formal schooling, daily life, and mass media has led to a gradual destruction of indigenous lifestyles, cultures, identities, and languages. In 2017, the Ministry of Education and Science made a decision to make studying of all indigenous languages voluntary thus reducing incentives for indigenous people to learn their respective languages.

The decision to reduce indigenous language learning and promotion of indigenous cultures goes against Education 2030. It concerns especially the strategy to foster multilingual education starting with children’s first/home languages to prepare them effectively for future learning, and SDG 4.7. that emphasizes the importance of cultural diversity and its contribution to sustainable development. Learning in children’s home/first language and in culturally-sensitive environments is one big step to eliminate disparities in learning outcomes for vulnerable school populations such as indigenous children (SDG 4.1). These policies also defy the country’s legal protection of indigenous peoples and may disregard the needs and interests of Russia’s indigenous peoples. The views and perspectives of the two Russia’s indigenous groups on their needs in education is the issue this study sets to explore.

As indigenous education in Russia is viewed by the authors as emerging from the era of forceful integration (colonization) of indigenous groups into the dominant Russian society and is characterized by gradual eradication of indigenous cultures and traditional structures deemed inferior by the dominant Russian culture, the study is framed by postcolonial and decolonial theories. Drawing on Andreotti (2011), we identify cultural supremacy of ethnically Russian group as the foundation that justifies inequalities between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples in education (postcolonial theory), and coloniality of power of the dominant group as the foundation for epistemic racism that effaces indigenous control and knowledge and value systems (decolonial theory). These theories have guided the study’s research design from its inception to data collection and analysis.

10 Karelian and 10 Mari people participated in in-depth semi-structured interviews to explore indigenous views on Russia’s policies. The interviews were conducted in Russian by researchers with indigenous origins. With the Karelian people a maximum variation sampling was employed. We used social media to reach a wide range of ages, genders, and professions. As this strategy was met with suspicion by the Mari people, we instead used the snowballing strategy to recruit people. The Mari researcher used her network to invite Mari participants who in turn invited more contributors. We then used qualitative content analysis to analyse the data we collected.

The interviews revealed many similarities and certain differences between the groups. The participants feel proud of their identities and belonging to indigenous groups. Karelians feel that their identity makes them resilient while for the Mari it represents a unique knowledge system. Strong identities are essential for them as they link indigenous people with their roots and ancestors and remind them to respect their traditions, memories, teachings, and history. Both groups emphasized that some people have become assimilated into the dominant Russian culture and do not value native languages and cultures. For Karelians, this has led to gradual erasure of knowledge systems, cultures, and languages, while Mari people seem to be more exposed to their history, culture, language, and art, although the situation is changing.

The participants view education inclusive of indigenous languages and cultures as key to strengthening their identities and self-awareness. Most Karelian and all Mari participants want inclusion of such subjects as indigenous languages, literature, geography, sport, art, histories as obligatory for indigenous students and elective for Russians. Some Karelian participants, however, believe that language should be taught only on voluntary basis for all, and a small number of Mari and Karelian participants expressed that Russian students have to learn about indigenous issues in their Republics to show respect to native people and the land. At the same time, there was a disagreement about teaching past oppression of indigenous peoples: some believe it can lead to conflicts, while most of the others see the importance of studying such instances to learn about the past not to commit such injustice in the future.

The Karelian participants identified indifference and ignorance of authorities who block policies that would otherwise help them, as the main obstruction to inclusive education. They also see passivity of their people as preventing progress of indigenous education. This is contrasted by what seems to be a more active position of the Mari people.

The presentation will showcase indigenous views on their education in Russia and will reflect on the characteristics of the groups and their histories, politics, and relations with the dominant group that have put them on slightly different trajectories of development and education. As research with indigenous peoples’ education in Russia is limited, the authors believe that this study can offer timely and significant perspectives on the current re-orientation of Russia’s indigenous education.

Authors

• Daria Khanolainen, Kazan Federal University

• Yulia Nesterova, The University of Hong Kong

• Elena Semenova, Kazan Federal University