Buryat Migrations and Diasporas in Historical Space and Time (20th-21st Centuries)

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

Buryat Migrations and Diasporas in Historical Space and Time (20^th-21^st Centuries)

“Institute for Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies SB RAS

Ulan-Ude, Russian Federation ^bIrkutsk State University Irkutsk, Russian Federation “National Research Tomsk State University Tomsk, Russian Federation

Аннотация

Миграции и диаспоры бурят в историческом пространстве и времени (XX-XXI вв.)

“Институт монголоведения, буддологии и тибетологии СО РАН

Российская Федерация, Улан-Удэ

^бИркутский государственный университет

Российская Федерация, Иркутск

Национальный исследовательский

Томский государственный университет

Российская Федерация, Томск

В центре внимания статьи - диаспоры и миграции в монгольском мире (как внутри, так и вне его пределов). На этом исследовательском поле наблюдается богатство этнодиаспоральных форм и механизмов, неожиданные и своеобразные процессы адаптации мигрантов и принимающих обществ. Новизна заключается в попытке сравнения миграций бурят в Монголию, Китай и Южную Корею. Раз-нообразная «линейка» миграционных типов - от традиционных откочевок до со-временной образовательной и трудовой миграции в условиях глобализирующегося мира делает проблему чрезвычайно актуальной. Цель - анализ диаспоральных стратегий (от трансплантационного варианта шэнэхэнских бурят до современных трансграничных бурятских мигрантов, консолидирующихся посредством интер-нета) и предварительная оценка особенностей трансграничной бурятской мигра-ции в Южную Корею. Изучение этномиграционных процессов дает возможность рассмотреть практики адаптации мигрантов к принимающему обществу, стратегии конструирования мигрантских сообществ, процессы институционализации бурят-ских диаспор, связанных с созданием в принимающих странах механизмов взаимо-действия. В исследовании учтены последние достижения различных наук, на стыке которых оно проводилось. Наряду с общеисторическими подходами применялись методы качественной социологии: интервью, опросы, дискурсивный анализ СМИ, исследование комплекса официальных документов, статистики. Статья состоит из трех case-study и базируется на анализе российских, монгольских, корейских официальных документов, материалов масс-медиа, серии бесед и интервью, полу-ченных в ходе полевых исследований авторов в Монголии, Китае и Южной Корее.

Ключевые слова: монгольский мир, буряты, шэнэхэнские буряты, откочевка, миграция, мигранты, адаптация, принимающее общество, Россия, Китай, Монголия, Южная Корея.

adaptation migrant peculiar

Abstract

The article focuses on diasporas and migration in the Mongolian world (both inside and outside its borders). There is a wealth of ethno-diasporal forms and mechanisms, unexpected and peculiar adaptation processes of migrants and host societies on this research field. The novelty lies in the attempt to compare the Buryat migrations to Mongolia, China and South Korea. The rich “line” of migration types from traditional migrations to modern educational and labour migration in a globalizing world makes the problem extremely urgent. The goal is the analysis of diasporal strategies (from the transplantation version of Shenekhen Buryats to modern cross-border Buryat migrants consolidating via the Internet) and a preliminary assessment of the characteristics of cross-border Buryat migration to South Korea. The study of ethnomigration processes makes it possible to consider the practices of adaptation of migrants to the host society, strategies for constructing migrant communities, the institutionalization processes of the Buryat diasporas associated with the creation of interaction mechanisms in host countries. The study takes into account the latest achievements of various sciences, at the junction of which it was carried out. Along with general historical approaches, methods of qualitative sociology were used: interviews, polls, discursive analysis of the media, and research on a set of official documents, statistics. The article consists of three case-studies and is based on an analysis of Russian, Mongolian, Korean official documents, media materials, a series of conversations and interviews obtained during field studies of the authors in Mongolia, China and South Korea.

Keywords: Mongolian world, Buryats, Shenekhen Buryats, decampment, migration, migrants, adaptation, host society, Russia, China, Mongolia, South Korea.

Abstract

The Mongolian world, of which the Bury-ats are a part, is traditionally distinguished by a high intensity of migration processes. By the Mongolian world we understand the historical and cultural space that has formed in the vast expanses of Inner Asia. It is united by the sim-ilarity or kinship of languages, cultural norms, and the commonality of history or the idea of such a community, common traditions, histori-cal memory, and mythology. This is a phenom-enon that is extremely heterogeneous and di-verse, structured by tribal lines, scattered over a vast territory.

For centuries, nomadic cattle breeding has been the way of the economy and lifestyle. In the modern era, the specifics of the Mongolian world, divided by several political borders and experiencing various variants of nation-build-ing, raises the question of the possibility (or impossibility) of the formation of diasporas within the borders of this world as a result of multidirectional migration processes.

In the process of formation of the states of the modern type and their borders, the tra-ditional mechanism of moving and migrations is also filled with new content. Numerous and massive cases of refuge, including in the form of migrations, were caused by cataclysms of the 20^th century. The automatic reproduction of sociality, the transfer of a traditional social structure, way of life, a system of power and other relations, property and the economic structure to a new place were the result of mi-grating or leaving for a new territory, another state by clan groups with cattle as the basis of the economy. This was a fundamental differ-ence from classical refugee - there was no de-classification and marginalization. There was no dissolution among the culturally related host societies. This led to the formation of new types of sociality and new mechanisms of in-tergroup relationships in the general context of modernization processes.

At the same time, there are processes of migration beyond the Mongolian world to other states. And here it is important to see what hap-pens to migrants there, what the range of their individual and / or group integration strategies is (from assimilation to “pupping”, enclaveiza- tion).

A special role in these processes is played by the Buryat society, which is undergoing rap-id modernization, intensive nation-building, an integral and important part of which are migra-tions both within the Mongolian world and be-yond its borders. This suggests the possibility of different strategies for adapting to host so-cieties, different diasporalization models. We will try to test this hypothesis by the example of several cases of fundamental importance for the Buryat society.

Buryats in Mongolia

Buryats constantly went to the territory of Mongolia with cattle during seasonal migra-tions. The formation of the main Buryat eth-nic enclave here took place at the end of the 19^th - the 1^st tertial of the 20^th century. It was formed gradually (Boronoeva, 2010; Nanzatov, 2010; Natsagdorzh, 2010; Rinchinova, 2011) in the course of constant diffusion, migrations of individual families and clans in search of pas-tures across an almost symbolic border. This was followed by several waves of refuge from the land policy of the tsarist authorities and the mobilization of the First World War, the tur-moil of the Civil War and the policy of the So-viet government. Buryats settled mainly in the bordering northeaster regions of Outer Mongo-lia.

Their legal status was determined only af-ter the Revolution of 1921. The authorities of independent Mongolia were kind to the Buryat migrants. The creation of their own institutions was fully supported; they were recognized by the bodies representing the interests of the group. In Urga in 1918, the Buryat Committee was formed. The First Buryat Congress (1921) was formed by the Buryat Khural, recognized by the government as a representative body of the Buryats. Special areas were allocated for the settlers, Khalkha-Mongols moved from there if necessary. Buryat khoshuns, special administrative units, were created. Migrants were exempted from taxes for a period of three years. 35517 people (9243 families) received Mongolian citizenship in 1923-1929. The rest were evicted to the USSR after 1924. As a result, the Buryat population amounted to 35 thousand people (according to the 1924 Gen-eral Census).

Such kindness of the authorities had quite practical reasons. For the formation of modern society and the state, the Buryats, with their education, knowledge of crafts and advanced technologies of animal husbandry and agri-culture, represented valuable human material. The Buryat intellectuals and politicians, di-rected by the communist regime of Russia, at first formed the most influential group in the country's leadership. They sought to create a nation-state in the vast expanse of the Mongo-lian world in the modern European sense of the time. On the path to realizing this goal, they lobbied for the interests of the Buryat immi-grants, taking an active part in their self-orga-nization and arrangement. For some time, the nationalism of Buryat intellectuals and politi-cians did not contradict the Bolshevik ideas of the world revolution.

The Soviet authorities reacted quite fa-vourably to the process of migration and root-ing of the Buryats in Mongolia. It was neces-sary to strengthen its independence and create a viable foundation for statehood. At that time, Mongolia was also considered as a support base for the expansion of the world revolution in China, primarily in the area of Inner Mon-golia.

By the beginning of the 1930s, the situa-tion had changed radically. The authorities of the USSR became disillusioned with the ideas of the world revolution, including in terms of uniting the Mongolian peoples under their aus-pices. The Buryat part of the political elite of Mongolia lost their political confidence. They turned into “bourgeois nationalists”, and the word “pan-Mongolism” became a label and a political accusation. The Buryat population of the north-eastern aimaks of Mongolia began to be considered in the categories of “white em-igrants”, opponents of the Soviet regime and counter-revolutionaries.

In the political elite of Mongolia torn by group conflicts, a group of representatives of the youth “Khudon” wing, Khalkha by ori-gin, stood out. They joined the fierce struggle for power, striving to push back the veterans, mostly Buryats, under the banner of the strug-gle with the “right”. The struggle of generations and ideologies took on an ethnic character. Supported by the workers of the Comintern, the “leftists” their Buryat rivals, many were destroyed physically as well. The fabricated “Lkhumbn Case”, the secretary of the Mongo-lian People's Party, the head of the Mongolian trade unions, became the peak of this struggle. Together with the elite, all Buryats as a group became political enemies and came under at-tack. Almost every family suffered from mass repression. Up to 90% of men in some Buryat regions were physically destroyed (Rinchino- va, 2011: 78-90).

The result was that the Buryats sought to hide their origin, did not wear national clothes, and did not use the Buryat language in public places. According to the Mongolian research-er R. Regzendorzh, the extermination of most men caused an increase in the number of mixed Khalkha-Buryat marriages, which sharply ac-celerated the assimilation processes (Regzen- dorzh, 2003: 17).

The processes of modernization in the so-cialist version, which accelerated sharply after the Second World War, had a significant impact on the further destinies of the Mongolian Bury-ats. The process of the formation of the Mongo-lian nation on the basis of the culture and lan-guage of the Khalkha, with their dominance, was accelerated. This predetermined the posi-tion of those who were not a Khalkha. Repres-sions against the Buryats as a group ceased. Back in the late 1920s, their national areas were eliminated. But they were recognized as one of the national minorities of Mongolia. In prac-tice, the Khalkha had a higher status and op-portunities for a career in life with legal equali-ty. According to observers, one of the strategies to overcome actual inequality was the massive and pronounced desire of Buryats to educate their children, including higher education. This probably explains the high proportion of Bury-ats in the educated elite of the country.

Throughout the socialist era, the desire to hide the Buryat origin, to declare oneself as a Khalkha, was very popular. U. Bulag (Bulag, 1998: 35-36), who conducted field research in 1991-1992 among the Buryats of the cap-ital and northeastern aimaks, notes the wide-spread occurrence of this phenomenon. Man-datory record of nationality in passports did not interfere with such practice. The fluency in the Mongolian language was widespread; the Buryat language was more often used as a home language, in family communication, or was completely lost.

Despite this, assimilation did not occur, which emerged after the democratic revolution. The number of people who declared them-selves Buryats during the Censuses was con-stantly growing: in 1956 - 24.6 thousand, in 1963 - 28.5 thousand, in 1969 - 29.8 thousand, in 1979 - 29.8 thousand, in 1989 - 35.4 thou-sand, in 2000 - 40.6 thousand, in 2010 - 48.5 thousand people. Some experts are inclined to believe that the real number can reach up to 100 thousand people (Rinchinova, 2011: 108-110).

Moreover, Buryats are not just a statistical category. Nobody did any calculations of their specific weight in the composition of the coun-try's modern intellectual, political and business elite, and they are hardly possible. However, the fact that many of the largest businessmen, pub-lic figures, and politicians are Buryats says a lot. Of course, they mainly position themselves as Mongolian (in the civilian sense) politicians and public figures, but at the same time some are actively involved in the development of the Buryat community. They participate in the cre-ation of a network of Buryat public and cultural institutions. The Buryat Community Council, the Foundation for the Development of Bury-at Culture and Traditions in Mongolia, and the Toonto Youth Organization were founded and are actively functioning. Where Buryats live compactly, the Foundation has regional branch-es; it holds many social and cultural events, organizes and finances the publication of lit-erature. At the initiative of the Foundation, in 2008, the Academy of Buryatology was estab-lished. The Foundation initiated the creation of the Altargana festival in 1994, which became an influential social movement throughout the Buryat world.

The administrative-clan principle of reset-tlement, which emerged at the beginning of the migration process, makes it difficult to consol-idate the Mongolian Buryats as a single com-munity. According to individual aimaks, tribal groups of the Buryats are clearly localized ter-ritorially (Ochir, Serzhee, 1993; Oyuntungalag, 2004).

The Polish researcher Z. shmyt is right, noting that “weak cooperation between dif-ferent groups of Buryats in Mongolia and the much greater importance of patrimonial and territorial contacts may indicate the incom-pleteness of the process of ethnic consolidation of the Buryats in Mongolia” (Shmyt, 2007: 84). One of the possible explanations for the inhi-bition of the process of their consolidation as a single community, and not a complex of ter-ritorial clan groups, is that the Buryats were always active participants in the formation of a civil nation in Mongolia, having accepted the dominance of the culture and language of the Khalkha in this process, defending their specif-ic interests through a system of territorial clan groups.

Shenekhen Buryats in China

A local ethnocultural group of Shenekhen Buryats was formed in the area of the Shenekhen River (Barga region of the Inner Mongolia of China) by Buryat refugees from Russia (Bal- dano, Dyatlov, 2008; Boronoeva, 1999; Abida et al., 1985). The turmoil of the civil war and the cataclysms of the socialist transformations in Russia became a pushing factor for this group. An application for permission to the Aga Buryats to resettle in Barga (Khulun-Buir) was submitted by the outstanding scientist and public figure M.N. Bogdanov and Buryat Noy-on (prince) Namdak Bazarov at the end of 1917. Having received the official consent of the lo-cal authorities, the first immigrants arrived at the same time. Their stay was finally legalized by a decision of the local authorities in 1921. They got a vast territory in the Shenekhen riv-er valley and created a special administrative unit - the Buryat khoshun (county), which in-cluded four somons (lots). Administrators were appointed from among the immigrants. More than 60 families, or about 700 people, lived there in 1922. With the beginning of collectiv-ization in the USSR, the influx of new migrants increased, continuing until 1933. By that time, there were more than 700 families, i.e. about three thousand people, in the Buryat khoshun.

With the onset of the Japanese occupation and the formation of Manzhou-Guo, migration almost completely ceased, ties with the histor-ical homeland were cut off for a long time. The Shenekhen Buryats, as subjects of the “empire” of Manzhou-Guo, were to serve in the securi-ty forces and carry out common duties for all. Japanese was introduced at school as a compul-sory subject. The Buryat khoshun was elimi-nated. By setting exorbitant taxes, the Japanese authorities constantly carried out requisition of livestock. In an effort to get away from the bor-der and the alleged places of hostilities, several groups of Buryats migrated from Shenekhen.

With the advent of Soviet troops in 1945, repression began against those accused of col-laborating with the Japanese. About 400 people (up to half of the adult male population) were forcibly deported to the USSR and partly re-pressed. The civil war between the Kuomintang and the Communists (1946-1949) also brought great casualties and huge material losses.

The proclamation of the PRC was accom-panied by major changes. A number of admin-istrative-territorial transformations were made. Today, the Shenekhen Buryats live in three so- mons of the Evenki khoshun of the Hulunbuir aimak. Their number is estimated in the range of 6.5-7 thousand people. They survived collec-tivization, mass repression in the socialist era, especially during the years of the “cultural rev-olution”. The opportunity to return to the usual foundations of life appeared with the beginning of Deng Xiaoping's reforms. The Shenekhen Buryats are a rather prosperous group whose economy is based on cattle breeding. In a 30-year lease they received large tracts of land for farming. Wage labour was often used. With the opening of the border with Russia, relations with the “historical homeland” were restored, where more than 400 people returned.

Refugees were the founders of this group. Refugees had a traditional and habitual form of migrating since imperial times. “A powerful incentive to create a virtually new ethnolocal group was a forced separation from the clan base, from the main ethnic massif. Not just a conglomerate of people living in one place, but a community united by self-consciousness and a developed system of internal relations, inter-dependencies and social control, but on a tradi-tional and habitual basis, on the basis of gener-ic relations and structures brought with them” (Baldano, Dyatlov, 2017, with. 237).

On the part of the old-age population, mi-grants did not meet with hostility, due to the ab-sence of a conflict of interest, as well as the kin-ship and close historical ties of the Buryats and Barguts. The lands allotted to the settlers were “escheat”. Neither the natural type of econo-my, nor the nature of the economic structure (traditional cattle breeding) required advanced integration. There was no conflict of interests with neighbours over resources, nor developed economic cooperation, exchange and competi-tion. As a result, there was no need for constant and everyday communication. Therefore, such a difficult adaptation problem as mastering the language of the host society was painlessly re-solved. The language of everyday communica-tion is the Buryat language. It could serve al-most the entire range of linguistic needs of the group until recently.

The Lamaist religion was a factor in ral-lying the Shenekhen Buryats. Traditions, cus-toms, ceremonies, holidays, national clothes brought from the historical homeland, as part of everyday everyday life, became the basis for the consolidation and formation of the ethnolocal community. Here we see a classic community-based model of organization right down to the rigid system of internal marriage. There were almost no mixed marriages with representatives of neighbouring groups, de-spite ethnocultural kinship. There was no tendency to dissolve in a culturally close Mongol-speaking environment. The unique combination of disinterest in acculturation (especially assimilation) in the host society with the absence of external pressure (up to the “cultural revolution”) determined the fate of the Shenekhen Buryat group.

Minimum openness to the host society, a clear internal organization, the existence of a system of power, control and sanctions made it possible to form a single community from a conglomerate of clan groups and individual refugees. In terms of economic specialization, it was self-sufficient. Separated from the host society by the system of tribal relations, tra-ditions and customs, the Buryat language, the community was large enough to support the structure of sociality. It closed itself in, not re-ceiving impulses for integration from the host society.

The memory of the “historical homeland” and the realization of its “shard” became one of the pillars of the isolation of the group. “But what was meant by the “historical homeland” - the state, locality, people, relations? It is un-likely that all this was shared in the minds of people, but the first place in the respondents' answers is “toonto niutag” (a small homeland), then relatives and, finally, the Russian state” (Boronoeva, 2011: 187). The main clan array remaining there did not occupy the last place in this hierarchy of representations. The dream of return was based on the desire to reunite with relatives. In the hope of a speedy return, the representatives of the first generation of the Shenekhen Buryats deliberately did not learn Chinese. There are many Russisms in their language today. Respondents emphasized that they learned how to handle agricultural ma-chinery, build houses, bake bread, mow and harvest hay from Russians. This gave them additional advantages over their neighbours - Barguts, Dagurs, Evenks.

With the era of Deng Xiaoping, rapid modernization transformations began. In a market economy, private property, econom-ic freedoms, the ability to conduct one's own economy destroy isolation and self-isolation. New opportunities and temptations related to urban culture, fierce competition for resources, education, jobs appeared. Shenekhen Buryats are engaged not only in cattle breeding, but also in medicine, healthcare, education, and the service sector. Their territorial and social mo-bility is growing. About 300 Shenekhen Bury-ats came to Russia in the 1990s. Today their number is about 400 people. The main motives for returning are nostalgic (“the homeland of the ancestors”), economic (search for new op-portunities), educational (within the framework of existing preferential programs). In any case, they returned to Buryatia, to the homeland of their ancestors, to their compatriots-Buryats. But a quick merger with the “mother ethnos” did not happen. Migrants occupied specific niches in the economy, and used internal net-works, connections and relationships in social terms. The main massif of the group that re-mained in China actually became a “nation-al centre”, in some ways - a new “historical homeland”.

Thus, a special ethnolocal group was formed, developing on its own basis. Its main characteristics were set by the transboundary way of life and the way of formation during the short historical era, saturated with cataclysms. Being an integral part of Chinese society, it is closely connected with the Buryat people, Buryatia, and through them with Russia.

Buryats in South Korea

The Buryats demonstrate a different type of building migration strategies and practices in the process of modern intensive cross-border migrations outside the Mongolian world. These are not the old migrations, these are quite mod-ern typical labour migrations when not groups migrate, but individuals who can form commu-nities, or can do without it. Buryats are actively involved in the processes of diaspora building as Russian migrants, on the one hand, and part of the Mongolian cultural world, on the other hand. This increases their adaptive capabilities in the host society, expands the set of appropri-ate tools.

Extremely interesting material for study-ing such a migration model is provided by the situation in South Korea. This country imple-ments a migration policy aimed at overcoming the shortage of labour in small and medium enterprises, filling the need for scientists and highly qualified specialists for advanced sec-tors of the economy. In particular, the number of migrants from Russia is growing. Additional factors contribute to this are: 1) Russian Ko-reans receive special visas in accordance with the agreement of 2010 on dual citizenship; 2) Seoul attracts young foreigners to South Ko-rean universities through grant systems; 3) a visa-free regime was introduced between Rus-sia and South Korea in 2014; 4) in Russia, the socio-economic situation has worsened.

The main flow of migrants is formed from the inhabitants of the east of the country, and the Buryats are very noticeable among them. The crisis economic situation in the republic encourages them to emigrate. In 2014, the once successful Baikalfarm distillery was closed, which provided jobs for about 2 thousand peo-ple across Russia, of which about 600 were in Buryatia. Baikalbank went bankrupt, this caused the loss of about 900 jobs. The “Milk of Buryatia” and “Ulan-Ude Stal'most” facto-ries were in a difficult situation. The industrial production index in January 2017 compared to January 2016 fell by almost 7%.

According to Buryatstat, the average monthly salary in Buryatia in February 2017 was 27,571 roubles (more than 36 thousand roubles in the country). A high proportion of those whose wages range from 10-15 thousand roubles. Overdue salary arrears increased over the year by 10.4% and amounted to 55.9 mil-lion roubles. According to the Republican Em-ployment Centre, information on the release of workers as of October 31, 2017 was submitted by 804 enterprises for 6149 people, 397 people worked part-time. The number of unemployed registered with the employment service in-creased from 6186 to 6567 people in Decem-ber 2016 - November 2017. The unemploy-ment rate among men in the city amounted to 9.2% in Buryatia (in the Irkutsk region - 7.7%) (Ikhenova, 2018).

In South Korea, according to official fig-ures, “in 2014, 34.8% of all labour migrants earned more than 2 million wons ($ 1.9 thou-sand) a month, and the share of migrants with wages to 3 million wons (2,8 thousand US dollars) increased, and the share of foreigners agreeing to a salary below 1 thousand dollars decreased” (Headline, 2014).

Such a gap in wage levels is the main in-centive for migration. In addition, migrants learn new technologies, acquire high profes-sional skills, and absorb the foreign culture that broadens their horizons. The relative emotional comfort of staying in the Korean environment for Buryats is also important, which is deter-mined by belonging to the same anthropologi-cal type. The distance, the cost of moving, the level of security, the expected housing condi-tions, etc. are taken into account. But the main thing is the expected level of income, deter-mined by wages.

People of different ages and backgrounds come to Korea - starting from 18 years old and ending with 60 years old, single, married, and often married couples. But mostly these are young people with a high level of education. Among them are businessmen, bank employ-ees, directors of travel agencies, artists and others. They work in construction, agriculture, catering, seafood processing, hotel business. If a few years ago, most of the Buryats worked in the industry of Greater Kwaju, and some in Seoul, today they live almost throughout Ko-rea.

They are in no hurry to return home, es-pecially if the work is legal. A medical worker from Ulan-Ude, Sergey, who receives $ 1,500 a month, works at a poultry farm, “As regards returning home, it's worth considering every-thing carefully. When I left home, I thought it would last for 6 months, now I'm not sure anymore. The dollar is growing, work is be-coming more profitable, and in Russia, mean-while, wages are not increasing, while prices are creeping up, slowly but surely. In general, we can only wait and see. If the situation at home does not change, then I think it's worth taking my family here, I won't find such work in Buryatia, getting such a salary at home in Ulan-Ude is unreal for me with my education” (Stepanova, 2016).

A young man, Bazyr, told us, “I left be-cause it seems to me that here, in Korea, the atmosphere is different. In Buryatia, honestly, I did not feel in demand. I graduated from col-lege. And where do I go now? I started to look for work and did not find it. My classmates de-cided to work as consultants in an electronics store. Others went to Canada, USA. I'm here in Korea. When I arrived, I realized right away that I would have prospects here. Though there was nothing - no work, no housing, no money. I had to take a loan in order to leave home and not to trouble my parents. And I do not regret it. I've already paid this loan to the bank, within a year I found everything - work, home, girl-friend ... I'm not going to return. I plan to get married here” (Ivanova, 2018).

There are more and more legalized Bury-ats in South Korea every year. “The ways and methods for this are different. Some, rum-maging through the family tree, take shape as ethnic Koreans. But this is not easy enough. There were cases when people changed their surnames to Korean - Kim, Khan, etc. For girls, the most popular option is to marry a Korean. But this method cannot be called easy, as the migration services closely monitor the formed families for two years, even to the ex-tent that the newlyweds are checked at night. Therefore, not everyone decides to create a fic-titious marriage, only for love. Moreover, Ko-reans themselves do not mind creating a family with home-grown and hard-working Buryats” (Gabysheva, 2017).

Buryats in Korea actively communicate, create fraternities, get married, celebrate na-tional holidays, bring children, become le-galized. In Seoul, the Buryat cafe “Baikal” appeared, which became an informal meeting place for Ulan-Udeans.

Migrants, as a rule, use ethnicity as a re-source to determine a pattern of economic be-haviour and solve their pressing problems. This is necessary to create conditions for effective economic activity, to ensure migration traffic, and to solve socio-cultural and domestic prob-lems. But at first, the Buryats often positioned themselves as Russians and representatives of the Mongolian community.

As the Korean researcher Jeong Bong Soo noted, “Buryat labour immigrants in the Re-public of Korea declare and identify themselves with “Pan-Mongolian” ethnosocial community and also have a fairly confident civic identity as a “Russian” in the Republic of Korea” (Jung Bong Soo, 2012). Today, the Buryats confi-dently demonstrate their ethnic identity, while building close ties with all Russian-speaking migrants and Mongols.

A vivid example in this sense is the “Seoul Mongoltown”, also called “Russiatown” or “Central Asian village”. Natives of Mongo-lia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Ta-jikistan live and interact intensively here. An extensive infrastructure, a special way of life, and diverse networks of migrant relations and ties have been created. This is a complex social organism, and not just a place of mechanical housing and business concentration of mi-grants. And it was formed not on an ethnic, but on a cultural basis. People from different coun-tries are united by the Russian language and the Soviet past. Two Russian-language newspa-pers are published in Seoul and Busan, namely, Seoul Herald and Window to Korea. In 2015, the Russian-language channel RusKorTV was opened. In September 2016, 6448 people were registered as users on the Russian-language website “Russian Korea” (Fayzrakhmanova, 2018). The number of users of Buryats in South Korea website in the VKontakte social network amounted to 2,000 in December 2018.

The working and living conditions of la-bour migrants in South Korea are quite diffi-cult: there is no medical insurance, no social assistance. Some do not withstand the loads, start drinking, families break up. Someone ceases to send money home, loses contact with relatives.

The big problem is violation of migration laws. Some live and work in Korea for years without being caught by the migration services. Despite the discontent of many Korean entre-preneurs interested in exploiting the illegal, and therefore cheap labour, deportations are peri-odically carried out. In 2017, 13,255 foreigners who were staying illegally in the country were detained, 15,728 illegal immigrants voluntarily left the country through the “green corridor” (Аsmolov, 2018).

These difficulties do not stop new mi-grants. According to the lawyer B. Dugarov, “our economy, unfortunately, does not create jobs; there are no new ideas and projects. There are practically no high-level specialists left. Those who came from Korea dream of return-ing there again, despite all the hardships of life there” (Baikal-Daily, 2017).

Conclusion

Traditionally, migratory-moving Buryats developed several models of cross-border mi-grations and diasporal strategies for integra-tion into the host society in the 20^th century. Even the Buryat groups that arose as a result of traditional migrations in China and Mongolia demonstrated fundamentally different integra-tion strategies in a culturally and historically related Mongolian environment.

The Shenekhen Buryats in Inner Mongo-lia of China created a closed and self-sufficient socio-cultural and economic group, preserving traditions, customs, way of life and lifestyle for a long time.

This enclosed enclave, which with-stood all the military-political cataclysms of the 20^th century, began to collapse only under the influence of modern turbulent modernization processes in China. Buryats in Mongolia took an active part in the processes of nation-state formation. Preserving their cultural Buryat self-identification, they integrate into the polit-ical nation of Mongolia.

The “Odyssey” of the Shenekhen Buryats and the experience of centuries of life in inde-pendent Mongolia indicate that the uniformity of the socio-economic structure, the relation-ship of languages and culture, the commonal-ity of fate and history did not become factors and mechanisms of assimilation.

Deep adapta-tion to the host society went hand in hand with the internal consolidation of these groups, the formation of special self-identification and the adoption of a diasporal model of the structure of life. Modern Buryat labour migrants demon-strate individual strategies of both choosing a migration strategy and ways of integration into the host society.

For the most part, these are well-educated citizens who form diasporal communities on a voluntary basis as an instru-ment of economic and cultural adaptation to the host society.

They pragmatically use the possibilities of their belonging both to the Rus-sian-speaking world and to the Mongolian his-torical and cultural community.

The world and the Buryat society are changing dynamically, as well as the Buryat migrant, his migration strategies, lifestyle and way of life, the nature of relations with the let-ting and receiving society.

References

1. Аbida, Ts., Bolod, Z., Dimchig, B., Lkhamsuren, S. (2005). Sovremennyi istoricheskii ocherk buri-at Shenekhena (per. so staromon. iaz. E. Sanzhanova) [The modern historical essay of the Buryats of Shenekhen (translated from the old Mongolian language E. Sanzhanova)]. In Lokal'nye osobennosti buri- atskoi ehtnicheskoi obshhiny Vnutrennei Mongolii Kitaiskoi Narodnoi Respubliki: Mat-ly 1-i nauch. ek- speditsii NGI. 2004 g. [Local features of the Buryat ethnic community of Inner Mongolia of the People's Republic of China: Materials of the 1^st scientific NGI expedition. 2004]. Ulan-Udeh: Izd-vo Buryatskogo gosuniversiteta, 23-38.

2. Abidueva, E. (2015). Na zarabotki v luzhnuiu Koreiu [To earn money in South Korea]. In Aginskaia Pravda [Aginskaya Pravda], 30.

3. Asmolov, K. (2018). Problema nelegalov i bezhentsev dobralas' do Respubliki Koreia? [Has the prob-lem of illegal immigrants and refugees got to the Republic of Korea?]. In Novoe vostochnoe obozrenie. 02.08.2018 [New Eastern Review. 08/02/2018]. Available at: ru.journal-neo.org/2018/08/02/problema-neleg- alov-i-bezhentsev-dobralas-do-respubliki-koreya// (accessed 14 December 2018).

4. Baikal-Deili 10.10.2017 [Baikal-Daily 10/10/2017]. Available at: www.baikal-daily.ru/news/16/275994/ (accessed 2 February 2019)].

5. Baldano, M., Dyatlov, V. (2008). Shenekhehnskie buriaty: iz diaspory v diasporu? Shenekhen Buryats: from the Diaspora to the Diaspora?]. In Diaspory [Diasporas], 1, 164-192.

6. Baldano, M., Dyatlov, V. (2017). Buriaty Kitaia i Mongolii v diskurse «natsional'nogo vozrozhdeniia»: razlichnye roli i meniaiushhiesia funktsii [Buryats of China and Mongolia in the discourse of “nation-al revival”: various roles and changing functions]. In Migratsii i diaspory v mongol'skom mire: strategii i praktiki transkul'turnogo vzaimodejstviia: kol. monograf [Migrations and diasporas in the Mongolian world: strategies and practices of transcultural interaction: multi-authored monograph]. Ulan-Udeh: Izd- vo BNTS SO RAN, 414 p.

7. Boronoeva, D.Ts. (1999). Dinamika prostranstvenno-vremennoi lokalizatsii buriat Vnutrennei Mon-golii KNR (istoriko-kul 'turologicheskii analiz). Dis. kand. ist. nauk [The dynamics of the spatiotemporal localization of the Buryats of Inner Mongolia of the PRC (historical and cultural analysis). PhD Thesis]. Ulan-Udeh.

8. Boronoeva, D.Ts. (2010). Buriaty v Mongolii i vo Vnutrennei Mongolii KNR: antropologiia perepisi i identichnost' [Buryats in Mongolia and Inner Mongolia of the PRC: Anthropology of the Census and Identity]. In Aziatskaia Rossiia: migratsii, regiony i regionalizm v istoricheskoi dinamike [Asian Russia: Migration, Regions, and Regionalism in Historical Dynamics]. Irkutsk: Ottisk, 273-283.

9. Fayzrakhmanova, Yu. (2018). Iz Rossii v Iuzhnuiu Koreiu: chto ishchut rossiiskie migranty v «Strane utrennei svezhesti» [From Russia to South Korea: what Russian migrants look for in the “Land of Morn-ing Freshness”]. In Ot veka bronzovogo do veka tsifrovogo: fenomen migratsii vo vremeni: kol. monograf [From the Bronze Age to the Digital Age: the phenomenon of time migration: multi-authored monograph]. Barnaul, Izd-vo ЛИ. Un-ta, 93-101.

10. Gabysheva, V. (2017). Kak tysiachi nashikh zemliakov sozdali «filial» Buriatii v Iuzhnoi Ko- ree. 29.06.2017 [How thousands of our countrymen created the “branch” of Buryatia in South Korea. 06/29/2017]. Available at: www.infpol.ru/101855-kak-tysyachi-nashikh-zemlyakov-sozdali-filial-bury- atii-v-yuzhnoy-koree/ (accessed 8 February 2019)].

11. Guchinova, E.-B. (2004). Ulitsa «KalmykRoad»: istoriia, kul'tura i identichnosti v kalmytskoi obsh- hine SSHA [Kalmyk Road Street: History, Culture, and Identities in the US Kalmyk Community]. Moscow, Aleteya, 328 p.

12. Headline (2014). Zarplata rabotaiushhikh v Iuzhnoi Koree migrantov prevyshaet 2 tysiachi dollarov [The salary of migrants working in South Korea exceeds $2 thousand]. In Headline 24.10.2014 [Headline of 24 October 2014]. Available at: news.headline.kz/worldnews/zarplatarabotayushchihyuzhnoykoreemi- grantovprevishaettisyachidollarov.html (accessed 29 November 2015).

13. Ivanova, T. (2018). «Koreiskii sindrom»: Kak Iuzhnaia Koreia lomaet i navsegda meniaet zhitelei Buriatii [“Korean Syndrome”: How South Korea breaks and forever changes the inhabitants of Buryatia]. In Arig Us 9 fev. 2018 [Arig Us of 9 February 2018]. Available at: arigus.tv/news/item/104868/ (accessed 2 February 2019)].

14. Ikhenova, M. (2018). Za god zhiteli Buriatii zarabatyvaiut v Iuzhnoi Koree bolee 40 milliardov ru-blei [For a year, residents of Buryatia earn more than 40 billion roubles in South Korea]. In Molodezh' Buriatii. 2018. 17 ianv [Youth of Buryatia. 17 January 2018]. Available at: www.baikal-media.ru/news/ society/347295/ (accessed 29 January 2019).

15. Jung, Bon Soo (2012). Koreiskaia diaspora vRossii v kontekste ehtnicheskoi indifferentnosti koreitsev i buriat. Avtoref. kand. ist. nauk [The Korean diaspora in Russia in the context of the ethnic indifference of Koreans and Buryats. Abstract of PhD thesis]. Ulan-Udeh.

16. Nanzatov B.Z. (2010). Mongol'skie buriaty: diaspora v situatsiiakh vyzova [Mongolian Buryats: Dias-pora in challenging situations]. In Transgranichnye migratsii vprostranstve mongol'skogo mira: istoriia i sovremennost ' [Cross-border migration in the space of the Mongolian world: history and modernity]. Ulan- Udeh: Izd-vo BNTS SO RAN, 83-110.

17. Natsagdorzh, B. (2010). Prichiny migratsii buriat v Mongoliiu (na primere atsinskikh tsongolov) [The reasons for migration of Buryats to Mongolia (on the example of the Atzin tsongols)]. In Trans- granichnye migratsii v prostranstve mongol'skogo mira: istoriia i sovremennost' [Cross-border mi-gration in the space of the Mongolian world: history and modernity]. Ulan-Udeh: Izd-vo BNTS SO RAN, 132-146.

18. Ochir, A., Serzhee, Zh. (1993). Khehntii aimgiinkhny ovgiin tovch lavlakh, ovog, ugiin bichig sergeekh zovlomzh [A quick reference to Khentai clans and pedigrees]. Ulanbaatar (In Mong.).

19. Oyuuntungalag, А. (2004). Mongol ulsyn buriaduud [Buryats of Mongolia]. Ulanbaatar (In Mongo-lian).

20. Regzendorzh, R. (2003). Mongolyn buriad ardyn am 'dralyn zarim asuudal [Some lifestyle issues of the Buryat people of Mongolia], Ulanbaatar (In Mongolian).

21. Rinchinova, O.S. (2011). Buriatskaya diaspora v Mongolii: etapy formirovaniia i razvitiia. Diss. na soisk. uch. st. kand. ist. nauk [Buryat diaspora in Mongolia: stages of formation and development. PhD Thesis], Ulan-Udeh, 128 p.

22. Stepanova, Z. (2016). Chto buriaty delaiut v Koree? [What are the Buryats doing in Korea?]. In Arig Us. 2016. 29.01 [Arig Us of 29 January 2016]. Available at: inosmi.ru/economic/20160513/236515905.html (accessed 8 September 2016)].

23. Shmyt, Z. (2007). Buriatskaia diaspora v Mongolii. Vopros identichnosti [Buryat diaspora in Mongo-lia. Identity issue]. In Diaspory vsovremennom mire: materialy mezhdunarodnogo kruglogo stola [Diaspo-ras in the modern world: materials of the international round table]. Ulan-Udeh, 75-90.

24. Uradin, E. Bulag. (1998). Nationalism and Hibridity in Mongolia. N.Y.: Oxford Univ. press, 1998. 302 p. (In English).

Размещено на Allbest