Education Policies and Indigenous Languages Shift in the Russian Federation: the Case of Karelian and Mari languages

• In Event: Promoting literacy and indigenous language education

Proposal

There are currently more than 1 million self-identified Indigenous persons in Russia (FSSS, 2010). Since 2016, there has been a significant shift away from the special status of “national” ethnic languages in the country (Bradley, 2019) with an aim of strengthening the “civic Russian nation” (GRF, 2016). As a result, great emphasis has been placed on promoting the Russian language, also referred to as nation-forming language (Constitution of the Russian Federation, 1993), as the main means towards a cohesive nation-building. This has resulted in a gradual loss of a generation of Indigenous language speakers, on one side, and the movement for preservation of Russia’s Indigenous languages, on the other. A mounting public concern among ethnic, including Indigenous, communities was also voiced with regard to native language learning at schools (Evdokimov & Ashitkova, 2019).
Although with each new census, Indigenous languages continue to lose speakers in Russia, the amendments of 2020 to the Constitution of the Russian Federation (1993, Article 69) guarantee “the preservation of ethnocultural and language diversity”. Furthermore, Article 14 of the law ‘On Education in the Russian Federation’ (Government of the Russian Federation, 2012) states that citizens of the country are guaranteed education in Russian or their native language (other than Russian). The same article stipulates that, schools in the ethnic republics can introduce the teaching of and instruction in the state languages of the republics which, however, must not contradict the Federal State Education Standards.
The purpose of this study was to explore the views of Indigenous communities in Russia regarding the changes in the development of their respective Indigenous languages as well as national and regional educational strategies, related policies and practices as applied to Indigenous language education in Russian schools. To do so, an exploratory qualitative study with two Indigenous groups (Karelian and Mari) was conducted. Karelian and Mari peoples are two Indigenous groups with distinct Indigenous identities, cultures, and languages. The Karelian people represent a significant minority in the Republic of Karelia named after them and comprise only 7.4% of the population. In contrast, the Mari people, who inhabit the Republic of Mari-El, amount to 43.9%. Indigenous language promotion has been different across the Indigenous regions. Karelian people have seen no substantial or coherent support of their language promotion. The Karelian language is partially used in literary works, the media, and some educational institutions. It is also protected by the Languages in the Republic of Karelia Act of 2000. Mari, on the other hand, is used in everyday social interactions (mainly in rural areas), included in the school curriculum as an elective subject “Mother tongue”, used in the regional mass media industry and national theatre. There are also several non-governmental organizations such as ‘Mari Ushem’ that aim to preserve the Mari language, culture, and to raise Mari people’s self-awareness.
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, knowledges, languages, and values (decolonial theory). These theories have guided the study’s research design from its inception to data collection and analysis. We frame our findings in the socio-historical and sociolinguistic context of the Republics of Karelia and Mari El to understand how historical and societal changes have led to the loss of domains for Karelian and Mari use.
Ten Karelian and ten Mari people participated in in-depth semi-structured interviews. The interviews were conducted in Russian by researchers with indigenous origins. This study employed purposive sampling to select information-rich cases and obtain a wide range of views of the two ethnic groups within this exploratory qualitative study. A multi-stage sampling process involved two main purposive strategies: 1) maximum variation (heterogeneity) sampling and 2) snowball sampling. Small population numbers of the two Indigenous groups selected for this study, their complex contexts and unique characteristics determined the choice of the sampling strategies. We then used qualitative content analysis to analyze the data we collected.
There are a few key findings that help us understand the linguistic situation in regard to Russia’s Indigenous peoples better. First, despite older generation’s relative proficiency in their respective languages due to mostly their growing up in densely populated Indigenous areas (often rural), young people and children do not show interest in the languages. This endangers the languages further. Second, the participants outlined three key factors that explain the decrease in the use and promotion of their languages, including Russification, urban migration, and globalization. Third, regarding educational policies, Karelians advocate healthy maintenance of their cultural and linguistic Indigenous knowledge in family and education domains even if that entails a removal of subjects related to the Karelian language and culture from the compulsory school curriculum in Karelian schools. Having somewhat differing socio-historical background, Mari participants viewed education inclusive of their native language and culture as key to strengthening their identities and the language.
Research on Indigenous peoples’ language education in Russia is limited and sporadic. There is thus limited understanding of what Indigenous people’s views on and experiences with language education are. The authors, therefore, believe that this study offers timely and significant perspective on the current re-orientation of Russia’s Indigenous language education directions for further research and practice.

Authors

• Elena Semenova, Kazan Federal University

• Yulia Nesterova, University of Glasgow