Intercultural relations in Georgia and Tajikistan: a post-conflict model

Before the collapse of the USSR, Georgia was one of the most multiethnic regions of the South Caucasus. However, even at the time when Georgia was a part of the USSR, the popular primordial doctrines expressed in the slogan “Georgia for Georgians” prevailed among Georgian intellectuals, which led to the growing movement in support of the independence of the Republic in the late 1980s (Berglund, 2016). Therefore, after the declaration of Georgia's independence in 1991, ethnic minorities found themselves in a country “ruled by and for ethnic Georgians” (Ibid, p. 2) that in turn led to changes in self-determination among ethnic minorities members.

Two regions of Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) were inhabited mainly by ethnic minorities who proclaimed their independence at the beginning of 1990s. There were armed conflicts between Georgian and South Ossetian forces (in 1991-1992), and between Georgian and Abkhazian forces (in 1992-1994). These conflicts ended with Georgia losing control over these two regions. Conflicting sides were divided by Peacekeeping Forces on the basis of international agreements. These forces were formed by Russia, Georgia and Ossetia in South Ossetia and by the CIS countries in Abkhazia. The long period of “increasing tensions, provocations and incidents” had “deep roots in the history of the region, in peoples' national traditions and aspirations as well as in age-old perceptions or rather misperceptions of each other, which were never mended and sometimes exploited” (Independent International Fact Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, 2009, p. 11). This culminated in the “five-day war” in 2008 that formally started with Georgia's attacking the capital of South Ossetia. The attack provoked an armed conflict between Georgia and Russia and ended in the secessions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia. Currently there are no direct diplomatic relations between Georgia and Russia.

Political tensions and economic difficulties in the country resulted in decreased numbers of ethnic minorities from 29.9% of the total population in 1989 down to 16.2% in 2002 due emigration, as well as “de facto secessions” of two regions (South

Ossetia and Abkhazia) (Nilsson & Popjanevski, 2009, p. 8; Metreveli, Nilsson, Popjanevski, & Yakobashvili, 2009; Sabanadze, 2011). The number of ethnic Russians in Georgia decreased from 6.3% to 1.5% during this period. In 2014, Russians were the third largest minority group after Azerbaijanis and Armenians, accounting for only about 26.5 thousand people or 0.7% of the population. More than half of all Russian Georgians live in Tbilisi (GeoStat, 2016).

The Russian language still remains the language of interethnic communication, but efforts are being made to replace this status with English, and this replacement is considered as a symbol of the country's European orientation (Sherouse, 2017).

The armed territorial conflicts and Russia's military and political support to South Ossetia and Abkhazia during these conflicts greatly influence the nature of intercultural relations, since many issues relating to ethnic minorities are often viewed through the prism of these conflicts. For Georgia, the attitude towards minorities is primarily a matter of national security (Sabanadze, 2011). Therefore, minorities are often seen as sources of potential threat (Sabanadze, 2011; Ulasiuk, 2013) that hinders the consolidation of society (Vardanyan, 2010). Therefore, despite the declaration of a state policy of integration, it is often equated with assimilation and `Georgianization', with a move towards a monoethnic society by the emigration of, and the gradual assimilation of, ethnic minorities (Ibid.).

The sample included 610 respondents: 298 ethnic Georgians and 312 ethnic Russians. A snowball sampling procedure was used. Russians and Georgians filled out the questionnaire in their native languages (Russian and Georgian subsequently). A description of the sample is presented in Table 1.

Descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients of measures and the results of MANOVA are presented in Table 2.

Table 2

intercultural ethnic conflict

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

c Measure of sociocultural adaptation is used in the group of ethnic Russians only.

Results of the path analysis in the two groups are presented in Figure 1.

Among ethnic Russians perceived security positively related to ethnic tolerance = .14, p< .05) and integration = .11, p< .05), negatively related to assimilation = --.18, p< .01) and did not relate to multicultural ideology. In the group of ethnic Georgians, perceived security positively related to integration ( = .21, p< .001) and to multicultural ideology ( = .23, p< .001), but didn't relate to tolerance and assimilation expectation.

Intercultural contacts negatively related to ethnic tolerance ( = --.13, p< .05) and assimilation ( = --.20, p< .001) in the majority group. Intercultural contacts positively related to both integration ( = .13, p<.05), and assimilation ( = .22, p< .001), but didn't significantly relate to ethnic tolerance in the Russian minority.

The relationship of integration and sociocultural adaptation of Russians was positive ( = .19, p< .001), as well as for self-esteem ( = .19, p<.001) and life satisfaction ( = .15, p< .01), while the latter two relationships were nonsignificant among Georgians.

Assimilation negatively related to self-esteem of Georgians ( = --.14, p< .05) that is along with the assimilation hypothesis, but at the same time it negatively related to sociocultural adaptation of ethnic Russians ( = --.14, p< .05) that contradicts this hypothesis.

Fig. 1

Study 2. Mutual Intercultural Relations between Tajiks and Ethnic Russians in Tajikistan

Sociocultural context of Tajikistan

Tajikistan is a former republic of the USSR with a mainly rural population. Tajikistan can be called the poorest country in the CIS, according to The Richest Countries in the World (Gregson, 2016), with 50% of the total GDP of the country consisting of remittances from Tajik labor migrants in Russia (Sarabekov, 2016). The population of Tajikistan is mostly Muslims (approximately 95% Sunni and 3% Shia). The next largest religious community is Russian Orthodox. After the collapse of the USSR the numbers of the largest ethnic minorities (ethnic Uzbeks and ethnic Russians) in Tajikistan decreased respectively from 23.5% and 7.63% of the whole population in 1989 to 13.9% and 0.46% in 2010, respectively (Vsesoyuznaya perepis' naseleniya..., 2015; Mukhammadieva, 2013). At present, the number of ethnic Russians (residing mainly in in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan) is declining rapidly (Mukhammadieva, 2013).

Participants and procedure

Results of the study 2

Table 3

Table 4

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

c Measure of sociocultural adaptation is used in the group of ethnic Russians only.

The MANOVA with ethnicity as the independent variable, and perceived security, intercultural contacts, multicultural ideology, tolerance, integration, assimilation, self-esteem and life satisfaction as dependent variables showed a significant multivariate main effect: Wilks' A = .706, F(8, 589) = 30.632, p< .001, p2 = .294. ANOVAs on the individual measures were also significant for perceived security, tolerance, integration, assimilation and life satisfaction (see Table 4). The scores on tolerance and integration were significantly higher in the sample of ethnic Russians than in the sample of Tajiks. The scores on perceived security, assimilation and life satisfaction were significantly higher in the sample of Tajiks than in the sample of ethnic Russians.

Results of the path analysis in the two groups are presented in Figure 2.

Perceived security positively related to multicultural ideology (8 =.16/.15, p< .01) and integration (8 =.18/.14, p< .01), but was not related to tolerance in either samples of ethnic Russians and Tajiks. We also found a positive relationship between perceived security and assimilation among the Tajiks (8 =.13, p< .05).

In both groups intercultural contacts negatively related to ethnic tolerance (8 = --.13/.--13, p< .05) and were not related to the assimilation preferences. Among Tajiks contacts positively related to integration (8 =.15, p< .01). We also found a positive correlation between perceived security and intercultural contacts in the sample of ethnic Russians.

The relationships between integration and well-being were positive for selfesteem (8 = .22, p< .001) and life satisfaction (8 = .14, p< .05) in the group of Tajiks. The relationships of integration were positive for self-esteem (8 = .26, p< .001), but nonsignificant for life satisfaction and sociocultural adaptation among the ethnic Russians.

Assimilation strategy negatively related to self-esteem = --.16, p< .01) and sociocultural adaptation ( = --.14, p< .05) among the ethnic Russians, but positively related to life satisfaction ( = .12, p< .05).

Fig. 2

The aim of these two studies was to test the three hypotheses of intercultural relations in groups of the Russian ethnic minority and the majorities in Georgia and Tajikistan.

The multiculturalism hypothesis found partial support in both groups in Georgia. Perceived security of ethnic Russians was positively associated with integration and negatively -- with assimilation. Based on this result we could argue that security enhances the orientation of the Russian minority to preserve its own culture contacting with a larger society. Perceived security was positively related to ethnic tolerance and friendly contacts with Georgians among Russians as well. A probable explanation might be that for such a small group as Russians in Georgia (0.7% of population), the willingness to be open to other groups and to develop personal friendships is possible when there is no threat to their group. For Georgians, security is linked to integration and multicultural ideology, but not to ethnic tolerance. It might be a result of previous territorial conflicts that aggravated the sense of threat from ethnic minorities among Georgians, as well as nationalist rhetoric that existed in the country for a long time (Berglund, 2016; Sabanadze, 2011; Ulasiuk, 2013), which affected the lower level of ethnic tolerance in comparison with Russians. Their fears are related to the integrity of the country which has been disrupted by ethnically-related conflicts. Under these conditions, only a sense of security can ensure the majority's loyalty to cultural diversity in the country and their orientation towards the integration of minorities.

In Tajikistan the multiculturalism hypothesis found partial support in both groups. Perceived security among both ethnic Russians and Tajiks was positively associated with multicultural ideology and integration preferences. These results are consistent with data obtained from other countries (e.g., Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006) where sense of security was positively associated with positive intercultural attitudes and supporting of multicultural ideology. We also found that among Tajiks security perception was positively related to assimilation expectation for ethnic Russians. These findings are consistent with results obtained in the Kabardino-Balkar Republic (KBR), Russia, by Z. Lepshokova and A. Tatarko (2016). The authors explained this phenomenon through the group-threat theory (Bobo, 1999) stating that when a minority group challenges the social position of a majority group by maintaining their own culture, the majority group feels threatened and prefers the assimilation of the minority (Davies, Steele, & Markus, 2008; Tip et al., 2012).

The contact hypothesis was partially supported only in the group of ethnic Russians in Georgia. Intercultural contacts in this group are related to both integration and assimilation. At the same time, we did not find a significant relationship of intercultural contacts with ethnic tolerance among ethnic Russians, but a negative relationship of intercultural contacts with ethnic tolerance among Georgians was revealed. In addition, there are no significant relations of contacts to integration expectation in the group of Georgians. This result is consistent with the results found for ethnic Russians and Latvians in Latvia (Lebedeva, Tatarko, & Berry, 2016b; Lebedeva & Tatarko, 2017) and for ethnic Russians in Lithuania (Ryabichenko, 2017). The contact hypothesis might be confirmed where certain conditions are met, such as the equal social and economic status of the interacting groups (Berry, 2017) that is difficult to achieve with the majority dominating in all areas of life.

The contact hypothesis in Tajikistan was partially supported in the group of Tajiks and wasn't supported in the group of ethnic Russians. The results of our study demonstrated that intercultural contacts negatively related to ethnic tolerance among members of both samples in Tajikistan. We suppose that the absence of optimal conditions for contact to reduce prejudice (equal status, cooperation rather than competition, common goals, and authority support) (Allport, 1954) in Tajikistan are the reasons why intercultural contacts did not predict ethnic tolerance in both samples in this country. But it is also important to note that among Tajiks their friendly intercultural contacts with Russians resulted in a preference for Russians' integration in Tajikistan. Among Russians, intercultural contacts positively correlated with their perceived security as it was in Georgia. Similar results were obtained in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania (Lebedeva & Galyapina): the Russian's friendly contacts with the Ossetians had a significant and positive relationship with their perceived security. The difference was that in North Ossetia-Alania contacts were positively connected with ethnic tolerance in both groups, which is not true for Georgia and Tajikistan.

The integration hypothesis was fully confirmed among Russians in Georgia: the integration strategy is positively related to their self-esteem, life satisfaction and socio-cultural adaptation. However, we failed to confirm the hypothesis in the Georgian sample. A similar result was obtained in Azerbaijan, where, as in Georgia, the share of the Russian minority is very small; the psychological well-being of the majority does not depend on attitudes towards minorities (Galyapina & Lebedeva,

2016) . At the same time, assimilation is negatively linked to the self-esteem of Georgians, and intercultural contacts in the group of Georgians have proven to be an obstacle to assimilation, indicating a lack of aspiration to assimilate Russians among the Georgian majority.

In Tajikistan the integration hypothesis was fully confirmed in the Tajiks: their expectation of integration of ethnic Russians is positively related to self-esteem and life satisfaction of Tajiks. This hypothesis was partially supported in the group of ethnic Russians: their integration preference was positively related to their selfesteem. Our results are consistent with previous research (Hui, Chen, Leung, & Berry, 2015; Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2011).

The assimilation hypothesis was partially supported in the sample of ethnic Georgians: their assimilation expectations negatively related to their self-esteem. Negative relationship between assimilation and sociocultural adaptation of ethnic Russians contradicts the results obtained in previous studies (e.g., Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999).

The assimilation hypothesis in Tajikistan was partially supported in the sample of ethnic Russians, but not supported in the sample of Tajiks. Assimilation was negatively associated to the self-esteem and socio-cultural adaptation, but positively related to life satisfaction of ethnic Russians. Some studies found the same relationships. In a study of interethnic relations in the KBR assimilation strategy negatively related to self-esteem among the ethnic Russian minority (Lepshokova, 2012), in a study of intercultural relations among migrants from Caucasus and Russians in Moscow the assimilation strategy of migrants negatively related to sociocultural adaptation and positively related to their life satisfaction (Lebedeva et al., 2016a).

In Georgia, both contact hypothesis and integration hypothesis were not confirmed among Georgians. It can be assumed that this result reflects unfavorable attitudes of the majority towards Russians associated with the threat to the integrity of Georgia, as experienced in the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

In Tajikistan we found that intercultural contacts did not predict tolerance in the ethnic minority and majority groups. A large cultural distance, religious differences, the presence of a history of conflict contributed to the fact that both Tajiks and Russians perceive each other as “aliens”. At the same time the integration hypothesis is fully supported in the Tajik sample and partially supported among Russians. Both groups regard assimilation as an alternative strategy for the ethnic Russian minority: among Tajiks perceived security predicts preference for assimilation of Russians, while among Russians assimilation was significantly and positively associated with their life satisfaction. Probably this is a nearest future for reducing the ethnic Russian minority in the countries with a post-conflict past.

We can conclude that the post-conflict model of intercultural relations in the post-Soviet space is characterized by some specific patterns of the relationships between psychological variables: perceived security and intercultural contacts are closely connected with each other; contacts do not promote ethnic tolerance among both majorities and minorities. Such a complex interplay of security, contacts and tolerance reflects the impact of past conflicts on the psychology of intercultural relations in these countries and requires taking it into consideration.

References

1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

2. Berglund, C. (2016). “Forward to David the Builder!” Georgia's (re)turn to language-centered nationalism. Nationalities Papers, 44(4), 1-21. doi:10.1080/00905992.2016.1142519

3. Berry, J. W. (2017). Introduction to Mutual intercultural relations.In J. W. Berry (Ed.), Mutual intercultural relations (pp. 1-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ 9781316875032.001

4. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L, & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 55, 303-332. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.x

5. Bobo, L. D. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Microfoundations of a sociological approach to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 445-472. doi:10.1111/0022- 4537.00127

6. Brubaker, R. (2009). Ethnicity, race and nationalism.Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 21-42. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115916

7. Davies, P. G., Steele, C. M., & Markus, H. R. (2008). A nation challenged: The impact of foreign threat on America's tolerance for diversity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 308-318. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.308

8. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale.Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

9. Dubovitskaya, I. (2009). Rol' russkogo yazyka na territorii Sredney Azii: vzglyad iz Tadzhikistana [The role of the Russian language in the territory of Central Asia: a view from Tajikistan]. Euro- Asia, 1. Retrieved from http://www.promreview.net/moskva/rol-russkogo-yazyka-na-territorii- srednei-aziivzglyad-iz-tadzhikistana?page=0,0 (in Russian)

10. Galyapina, V. N., &Lebedeva, N. M. (2016). Is multiculturalism in Russia possible? Intercultural relations in North Ossetia-Alania. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art,9(1), 24-40. doi:10.11621/pir.2016.0102

11. Galyapina, V. N., &Lebedeva, N. M. (2017). Mezhkul'turnye otnosheniya mezhdu azerbajdzhancami i russkimi v post-sovetskom Azerbajdzhane [Intercultural relations between Azerbaijanis and Russians in Post-Soviet Azerbaijan]. In N. M. Lebedeva (Ed.), Mezhkul'turnye otnosheniya na postsovetskom prostranstve[Intercultural relations in the Post-Soviet space] (pp. 363-380). Moscow: Menedzher. (in Russian)

12. GeoStat. (2016). 2014 General Population Census: Main Results, National Statistics Office of Georgia, Tbilisi. Retrieved from http://geostat.ge/cms/site_images/_files/english/population/ Census_release_EN G_2016.pdf

13. Gregson, J. (2016, February). The richest countries in the world.Global Finance.Retrieved from http://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/richest-countries-in-the-world?page=12Hui, B. P. H., Chen, S. X., Leung, C. M., & Berry, J. W. (2015).Facilitating adaptation and intercultural contact: The role of integration and multicultural ideology in dominant and nondominant groups.InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 45, 70-84. doi:10.1016/ j.ijintrel.2015.01.002 Independent International Fact Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia. (2009). Report (Vol. 1). Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/HUDOC_38263_08_Annexes_ENG.pdf Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Horenczyk, G., & Kinunen, T. (2011).Time and context in the relationship between acculturation attitudes and adaptation among Russian-speaking immigrants in Finland and Israel. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(9), 1423-1440. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2011.623617

14. Kus-Harbord, L., & Ward, C. (2015). Ethnic Russians in post-Soviet Estonia: Perceived devaluation, acculturation, well-being, and ethnic attitudes. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 4(1), 66-81. doi:10.1037/ipp0000025 Lebedeva, N. M. (2018). Multiculturalism and intercultural relations in the Post-Soviet space.A keynote presentation at the 24th International Congress of the International Association for CrossCultural Psychology (IACCP 2018). Guelph, Canada, 1-5 July, 2018.

15. Lebedeva, N., Dimitrova, R., & Berry, J. (2018).Changing values and identities in Post-Communist world. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007%2F978-3-319-72616-8 Lebedeva, N., & Galyapina, V. (2016). Is multiculturalism in Russia possible? Intercultural relations in North Ossetia-Alania. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 9(1), 24-40. doi:10.11621/pir.2016.0102 Lebedeva, N., Galyapina, V., Lepshokova, Z., & Ryabichenko, T. (2017).Intercultural relations in Russia. In J. W. Berry (Ed.), Mutual intercultural relations in plural societies (pp. 34-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316875032.002 Lebedeva, N. M., & Tatarko, A. N. (Eds.). (2009). Strategii mezhkul'turnogo vzaimodeystviya migrantov i naseleniya Rossii: Sbornik nauchnykh statey [Strategies for the intercultural interaction of migrants and the population of Russia: A collection of scientific articles]. Moscow: RUDN University, (in Russian) Lebedeva, N. M., & Tatarko, A. N. (2017). Mezhkul'turnye otnosheniya latyshej i russkih v postsovet- skoj Latvii [Intercultural relations between Latvians and Russians in Post-Soviet Latvia]. In N. M. Lebedeva (Ed.), Mezhkul'turnye otnosheniya na postsovetskom prostranstve [Intercultural relations on Post-Soviet space] (pp. 301-323). Moscow: Menedzher. (in Russian)

16. Lebedeva, N., Tatarko, A., & Berry, J. W. (2016, a).Intercultural relations among migrants from Caucasus and Russians in Moscow.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 52, 27-38. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.03.001

17. Lebedeva, N. M., Tatarko, A. N., & Berry, J. (2016, b). Intercultural relations in Russia and Latvia: the relationship between contact and cultural security. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 9(1), 4156. doi: 10.11621 /pir.2016.0103

18. Lepshokova, Z. H. (2012). Strategii adaptatsii migrantov i ihpsihologicheskoe blagopoluchie (naprimere Moskvy i Severnogo Kavkaza) [Adaptation strategies of migrants and their psychological wellbeing (the case of Moscow and the North Caucasus)]. Moscow: Grifon. (in Russian)

19. Lepshokova, Z., & Tatarko, A. (2016). Intercultural relations in Kabardino-Balkaria: Does integration always lead to subjective well-being? Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 9(1), 56-73. doi:10.11621/pir.2016.0104

20. Letnyakov, D. E. (2015).Rol' russkogo yazyka v postsovetskoy Tsentral'noy Azii [The role of the Russian language in Post-Soviet Central Asia].Politiya.Analiz.Khronika. Prognoz, 4(79), 100-115. Retrieved from http://politeia.ru/files/articles/rus/Politeia-2015-4(79)-Pages-001-198.pdf (in Russian) Metreveli, E., Nilsson, N., Popjanevski, J., & Yakobashvili, T. (2009). State approaches to national integration in Georgia: Two perspectives. Washington, DC: Silk Road Paper.

21. Mukhammadieva, B. Z. (Ed.). (2013). Monografiya i atlas Respubliki Tadzhikistan po dannymperepisi naseleniya i zhilishchnogo fonda 2010 goda [A monograph and the atlas of the Republic of Tajikistan according to the 2010 population and housing census data]. Dushanbe: Agentstvo po statistike pri Prezidente Respubliki Tadzhikistan. (in Russian; in Tajik)

22. Nilsson, N., & Popjanevski, J. (2009). State building dilemmas: The process of national integration in postrevolutionary Georgia. In E. Metreveli, N. Nillson, J. Popjanevski, & T. Yakobashvili, State approaches to national integration in Georgia: Two perspectives (pp. 7-44). Washington, DC: Silk Road Paper. Norin, E. (2016). Neznamenitaya voyna v Tadzhikistane: 1992-1997 [The unknown war in Tajikistan: 19921997]. Retrieved from https://pikabu.ru/story/voyna_v_tadzhikistane_chast_pervaya_glava_per- vaya_3971940 (in Russian)

23. Rosenberg, M. (1965).Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400876136

24. Ryabichenko, T. A. (2017). Russkie v litovskom kontekste: proverka trekh gipotez mezhkul'turnyh otnoshenij [Russians in the Lithuanian context: testing the three hypotheses of intercultural relations]. In N. M. Lebedeva (Ed.), Mezhkul'turnye otnosheniya na postsovetskom prostranstve [Intercultural relations in the Post-Soviet space] (pp. 324-341). Moscow: Menedzher. (in Russian) Ryabichenko, T., & Lebedeva, N. (2016). Assimilation or integration: Similarities and differences between acculturation attitudes of migrants from Central Asia and Russians in Central Russia. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 9(1), 98-111. doi:10.11621/pir.2016.0107 Sabanadze, N. (2011). States, minorities and regional hegemons in the South Caucasus: Whose responsibility to protect. In F. Palermo, & N. Sabanadze, (Eds.), National minorities in inter-state relations (pp. 165-183). Leiden/Boston: OSCE HCNM. doi:10.1163/ej.9789004175983.i-274.54 Sarabekov, J. (2016). Sovremennyy Tadzhikistan: vyzovy razvitiya [Modern Tajikistan: development challenges]. Astana-Almaty: Institut mirovoy ekonomiki i politiki pri Fonde Pervogo Prezidenta Respubliki Kazakhstan - Lidera Natsii. Retrieved from https://docplayer.ru/28306335- Sovremennyy-tadzhikistan-vyzovy-razvitiya.html (in Russian)

25. Sherouse, P. (2017). The politics of Russian-Language film showings in Post-Soviet Georgia. Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 40, 137-157. doi:10.1111/plar.12209 Sitnyanskiy, G. Y. (2011). Rossiya i Tsentral'naya Aziya: vmeste ili vroz'? Mezhetnicheskiye otnosheniya v Sredney Azii i Kazakhstane i Rossiya [Russia and Central Asia: together or apart? Interethnic

26. relations in Central Asia and Kazakhstan and Russia]. Moscow: N.N. Miklukho-Maklai Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the RAS. (in Russian)

27. Tip, L. K., Zagefka, H., Gonzalez, R., Brown, R., Cinnirella, M., & Na, X. (2012). Is support of multi- culturalism threatened by... threat itself? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(1), 22-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.011

28. Ulasiuk, I. (2013). National minorities and migration in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine (CARIM-East Research Report 2013/33). San Domenico di Fiesole (FI), Italy: European University Institute. Retrieved from http://www.carim-east.eu/media/CARIM- East-RR2013-33.pdf

29. Vardanyan, T. (2010). Gruziya: identichnost' v politicheskikh programmakh i dejstvii [Georgia: the identities in political programs and in action]. 21-y Vek. Informatsionno-analiticheskijzhurnal[21st century. Informational and analytical journal], 3, 48-69. (in Russian)

30. Vsesoyuznaya perepis' naseleniya 1989 goda [All Union Population Census of 1989]. (2015). Demosсope Weekly, 651-652. Retrieved from http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/ rus_nac_70.php?reg=50 (in Russian)

31. Ward, C. & Rana-Deuba, A. (1999). Acculturation and adaptation revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(4), 422-442. doi:10.1177/0022022199030004003 Wilson, J. (2013). Exploring the past, present and future of cultural competency research: The revision and expansion of the sociocultural adaptation construct (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.

Размещено на Allbest.ru