hwasing.blogg.se

Using political ethnography, this paper will use interview material gathered from field research with everyday actors in Crimea and Moldova, where respondents were asked in detail about how they described their own identity and about what made them identify in these ways. The paper will investigate what it means to be Romanian in Moldova and Russian in Crimea, in terms of ethnic, civic, linguistic, territorial and cultural ties. Secondly, the paper will argue that kin majorities need to be analysed in their own right, since they form a greater proportion within the home-state and thus play a crucial role in local society and politics. The paper will argue that in order to understand fully the relations between kin majorities, their kin-state and home state and understand the growing institutions that exist for kin communities, like dual citizenship, it is necessary to start by understanding the nature of kin identification for members of this community. This paper will look at the meaning of kin identification in two kin majority cases, Moldova and Crimea. There is little research on cases where kin communities comprise local majorities and little research conducted from a bottom-up perspective, which engages with the members of these communities and understands the meaning of kin identification from their perspective. Understanding these complexities helps to have a more nuanced understanding of the role of ethnicity in post-Communist societies, in terms of kin-state and intrastate relations.Įxisting analyses of kin-state relations have focused only on cases where kin communities comprise local minorities and have analysed relations primarily from top-down perspectives, by examining only the state-level actors and institutions involved. Conclusions: To understand fully the relations between kin majorities, their kin-state and home-state and the impact of growing kin engagement policies, like dual citizenship, it is necessary to analyze the complexities of the lived experience of kin identification for members of kin majorities and how this relates to kin-state identification and affiliation. Respondents identified more in terms of assemblages of ethnic, cultural, political, linguistic, and territorial identities than in mutually exclusive census categories. Results: Ethnic homogeneity for kin majorities is more fractured that previously considered. Methods: The article is based on ∼50 fieldwork interviews conducted in both Moldova and Crimea with everyday social actors (2012–2013). Objective: This article investigates what kin identification means from a bottom-up perspective in two kin majority cases: Moldova and Crimea.