**
The informational basis of this research includes the results of a series of sociological surveys conducted from 1999 to 2010 within the region representing the “new Russian borderland” along almost the entire length of the border between Russia and Estonia and Latvia. This ethnocultural boundary in the 20th century served as a state border for only 30 years, while in the preceding seven centuries, the reverse proportion was observed: for five centuries, the border was political, and only for two centuries (18th-19th centuries) did it have administrative status.
The Pskov region is the only region in European Russia that borders three states. Moreover, two of the neighboring countries (Estonia and Latvia) are clearly associated by the local population with the Western cultural world, while one (the Republic of Belarus) is seen by the residents of the region as culturally very close to Russia.
The border status of the Pskov region has a significant impact on the life of the population throughout the region. This is facilitated by the shape of the region, whose elongation from north to south is largely determined by the existing ethnic boundary that has taken the form of a political border multiple times over the centuries. Along the modern state border, zones of direct sociocultural influence from neighboring countries have formed, expressed in the closeness of kinship and friendship ties and the intensity of cross-border contacts. Primarily, the sociocultural impact of neighboring countries is felt in the border areas themselves, and secondarily in the adjacent internal areas of the region, which we refer to as second-order borderlands.
Thus, we can speak of the existence of three sufficiently distinct zones of contact with neighboring countries in the Pskov region, characterized by sociocultural features: the Estonian, Latvian, and Belarusian borderlands. Within each of these zones, distinct belts of actual border areas can be clearly identified, which differ in the intensity of contact with neighboring countries, and belts of second-order border areas, which are also drawn into the sociocultural field of foreign neighbors according to certain criteria.
Outside the zones of the most noticeable contact with neighboring countries, there are several districts of the region located in its northeast and east. These districts, which do not experience obvious attraction to any of the neighboring countries, are referred to as internal areas of the region. Additionally, large cities (Pskov and Velikiye Luki) occupy a specific position in the region, serving as non-zonal centers of interstate interaction, as their population participates almost equally in intensive contacts with all three neighboring countries.
The ethnosocial specificity of the border areas of the Pskov region is determined by significant kinship or friendship ties of local residents with the populations of neighboring states. For example, every third resident of the districts adjacent to Estonia has relatives in that country, and another third has friends or acquaintances there. A similar picture is observed in the districts bordering Belarus. Every fourth respondent in the extreme south of the region has Belarusians among their relatives. At the same time, almost every fifth resident of the districts adjacent to Belarus can speak Belarusian, and more than half of the local population understands this language [4].
Stereotypical Representations of Russia and Neighboring Countries
The features of national identification were revealed by us in 2003 through a series of questions dedicated to stereotypical representations of Russia compared to neighboring countries (Estonia, Latvia, and Belarus) [3]. The sociological study was conducted using the method of formalized interviews in the Pskov region and adjacent areas of neighboring regions of Russia. A total of 3152 respondents were surveyed, including 2569 in the Pskov region (an average of about 100 people per administrative unit). Within each administrative district and in both cities of regional subordination, the sample was representative in terms of gender and age.
Overall, the image of Russia is formed from characteristics such as strong, peaceful, spiritual, and independent. Against this backdrop, Estonia and Latvia are seen as richer, more developed countries. However, when comparing Russia with Belarus, only three characteristics remain for the former (strong, independent, and spiritual), while Belarus is attributed qualities such as peaceful, developed, and rich. Nevertheless, the gap between these stereotypes (with the exception of two contrasting characteristics: strong Russia and peaceful Belarus) becomes minimal, indicating the closeness of the images of these two Slavic countries in contrast to the Baltic states (Table 1).
Table 1
Characteristics of National Stereotypes of Russia and Neighboring Countries
As Perceived by Residents of the Pskov Region (2003, % of respondents, N = 2569)
It should be noted that the images of Estonia and Latvia in the perception of Russians are virtually indistinguishable, rather corresponding to the image of any “Western country.” In other words, the stereotypical representation of Russia compared to Estonia and Latvia reflects a higher level of territorial identity than national identity. In fact, in this case, we are dealing with a supranational — civilizational identity, which is confirmed by the responses of respondents to questions regarding ethnic stereotypes of Russians compared to Estonians, Latvians, and Belarusians [5].
As the results of the comparison of the outcomes of our 2003 study and the conclusions of pilot sociological surveys on similar topics conducted from 1999 to 2002 [1; 2] show, stereotypical representations of neighboring countries and peoples are characterized by significant stability over time. These stereotypes do not have significant differences across different age groups of the population, indicating the continuity of their reproduction in subsequent generations, resulting in them becoming part of the cultural tradition of the people.
Attitude Towards Neighboring EU Countries (Estonia and Latvia)
In the winter of 2009-2010, we conducted a sociological survey of the population of Pskov and the border districts of the Pskov region (N = 339), which aimed to study the regional identity of the population and the influence of the border with the European Union on the life of the region’s population. The research method was formalized interviews. To the question “What do you think the presence of a border with the EU brings to the Pskov region?” the following responses were received: “exclusively benefits” — 5%, “mostly benefits” — 23.5%, “mostly harm” — 11%, “only harm” — 2%. The remaining respondents found it difficult to answer this question.
Respondents were also asked to evaluate their attitude towards the two Baltic countries neighboring the Pskov region. Neutral assessments clearly predominated regarding Estonia and Latvia. The responses “friendly countries” were given by 8% of respondents, “just neighbors” — 52%, “unpleasant neighbors” — 16%, “mostly enemies” — 5%, “unable to answer” — 19%.
A similar study, which investigated the attitude of the population of the Pskov region towards neighboring states and assessed the prospects for cooperation with them, was conducted by us in 2003 (N = 2569) [3] and in 2006 (N = 500) [7]. Over the years, the attitude towards the Baltic countries has changed insignificantly overall, with a noticeable decrease in the percentage of people considering Estonia and Latvia as friendly states (from 12% in 2003). Small changes also occurred in respondents’ assessments of the prospects for relations between Russia and the Baltic states, with predominantly optimistic forecasts of 2003 (35% optimistic against 29% pessimistic) being replaced by significantly more pessimistic views in 2006 (44% pessimistic against 11% optimistic).
However, we believe that the cautious attitude towards neighboring countries that has emerged in recent years is still a temporary phenomenon. The attitude towards neighboring countries is determined by long-term factors, namely the presence of numerous relatives, friends, and acquaintances of residents of the Pskov region in Estonia and Latvia.
Frequency of Trips to EU Countries and Other Regions of Russia
The frequency of trips to neighboring countries also positively affects the attitude towards them. However, this factor has become less significant recently due to the state border being a barrier-type obstacle, which facilitates the possibility of forming a more negative image of neighboring countries through mass media. According to the results of the 2009-2010 study, only 12% of respondents occasionally visit Estonia, and 13% visit Latvia.
The frequency of trips to neighboring countries has changed little over the past 10-15 years but remains very low compared to nearly 100% visitation by older respondents to Estonia and Latvia during the Soviet era.
In the spring of 2008, a sociological study was conducted in the Pskov and Kaliningrad regions, which aimed to study the identity of the population, identify local residents’ perceptions of the current socio-economic situation, problems, and prospects for the development of both their region and Russia as a whole[1]
The 2008 study was conducted using a stratified probability sample among residents of the regions aged 16 and older. The sample size was 1460 people in the Kaliningrad region and 740 people in the Pskov region. The sample is representative in terms of gender, age, and place of residence.
Pilot studies on this topic were previously conducted in both the Pskov region [1—3; 6; 7] and the Kaliningrad region [8—10]. The Pskov and Kaliningrad regions have bordered two EU countries since 2004. For this reason, a comparison of some results of the study in these two westernmost regions of Russia is of particular interest.
According to the results of the 2008 survey, only 13.5% of residents of the Pskov region had traveled abroad in recent years, another 29.5% had not traveled for several years, and 57% had never traveled abroad (Table 2). In this regard, Pskov residents significantly lag behind residents of the Kaliningrad region, among whom only 23% had not traveled abroad, 43% had not traveled for several years, while every third respondent travels abroad once every few years or more frequently.
Table 2
Frequency of Trips of the Population of the Pskov Region Abroad
(2008, % of respondents by age groups, N = 740)
Interestingly, Pskov residents do not travel much more frequently to other regions of Russia compared to residents of the Kaliningrad region. “Homebodies,” i.e., those who have never traveled to another region, make up 12% of Pskov residents (Table 3) and only 9% of Kaliningrad residents. Even the youth in the Pskov region are less mobile than in Kaliningrad.
Table 3
Frequency of Trips of the Population of the Pskov Region to Other Regions of Russia
(2008, % of respondents by age groups, N = 740)
However, comparative analysis showed that the frequency and recency of respondents’ trips to Russian regions were significantly affected by the collapse of the USSR and changes in the political-geographical situation, primarily in the Kaliningrad region. It is possible that the problems faced by Kaliningrad residents in visiting Russian regions somewhat stimulate trips to other regions of Russia. This cannot be said about Pskov residents, who do not have such problems; however, only about 48% of respondents travel to neighboring regions (at least once a year) (in the Kaliningrad region — almost 38%).
Assessment of Cooperation Prospects with the European Union
More than four-fifths of respondents living in the Pskov region believe that the region should actively develop ties with the countries of the European Union, including its neighbors — Estonia and Latvia. Only one in ten respondents holds the opposite view (Table 4). Only 5% of respondents in the Kaliningrad region opposed expanding ties with EU countries, although overall, the attitude of the population towards the prospects of cooperation with the EU in the two westernmost regions of Russia is very similar, and more specifically, largely positive.
Table 4
Attitude of the Population of the Pskov Region Towards the Development of Cooperation
With Neighboring EU Countries (2008, % of respondents by age groups, N = 740)
However, the perspective of the population of the two border regions of Russia on the accession of neighboring countries to the Schengen zone does not appear to be as optimistic. Overall, the reaction of Pskov residents to the accession of Estonia and Latvia to the EU and the Schengen zone is roughly the same as that of residents of the Kaliningrad region to the accession of Lithuania and Poland to the Schengen zone (Table 5). More than 36% of respondents supported the expansion of the Schengen zone (in the Kaliningrad region — 33%), and almost as many Pskov residents expressed their negative attitude towards this event (in the Kaliningrad region — even 44%). The more negative reaction of Kaliningrad residents to the accession of neighboring countries to the Schengen zone can be explained by the exclave position of the region, which affects the lives of the entire population of the Kaliningrad region. For the Pskov region, the change in the visa regime has only affected part of the population participating in foreign trips.
Table 5
Attitude of the Population of the Pskov Region Towards the Accession of Latvia and Estonia
To the EU and the Schengen Zone (2008, % of respondents by age groups, N = 740)
In the Kaliningrad region, compared to Pskov, the viewpoint that Russia should become a full member of the European Union is more popular (28% against 19% in the Pskov region). Moreover, this position is most strongly supported by the youth in both border regions. Elderly people take a more cautious stance, although many cannot provide an answer to this question at all (Table 6). Those who propose distancing from the EU are more often people who have a negative attitude towards the accession of Estonia and Latvia to the EU and the Schengen zone, who take pride in living in Russia and the Pskov region, but at the same time evaluate the situation in Russia negatively.
Table 6
Perceptions of the Population of the Pskov Region Regarding Possible Paths
For Cooperation Between Russia and the European Union (2008, % of respondents by age groups, N = 740)
In the Pskov region, unlike Kaliningrad, the viewpoint that Russia should regain the status of a superpower in the next 15-20 years is more popular (27% against 17%). However, Kaliningrad residents somewhat more strongly support the position that Russia should stand alongside the USA and the EU in terms of political influence (22% against 17%). Nevertheless, in both border regions, another viewpoint prevails, and about half of the respondents believe that Russia should enter the ranks of the 5-10 economically developed countries in the world in the near future (Table 7).
Table 7
Perception of the Population of the Pskov Region Regarding the Goals of Russia’s Development
In the 21st Century (2008, % of respondents by age groups, N = 740)
End of Table 7
**
Currently, mass media play a crucial role in shaping a “neighborly” or “oppositional” model of identity in border regions, especially when the state border serves as a difficult-to-overcome barrier for local residents, i.e., primarily performing “barrier” functions. The mass media, by constructing a geopolitical scale of “ally — partner — rival — enemy” in the mass consciousness, facilitate the task for politicians of operationally constructing images of “us” and “them.” In cases where opportunities for direct contact between populations living on different sides of the state border are preserved, the artificial imposition of an “oppositional” model of identity by political elites of neighboring countries becomes challenging.
References
-
Kuveneva T. N., Manakov A. G. Formation of Spatial Identities in the Border Region // Sociological Studies (“SOCIS”). 2003. No. 7. Pp. 77-84.
-
Manakov A. G. Geopolitical Preferences of the Population of the New Russian Borderland: Sociological and Geographical Measurement // Bulletin of Scientific Information. Reforms: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. Moscow: IMEPI RAN, 2000. No. 11-12: Border Areas, Border Cooperation. Pp. 151-162.
-
Manakov A. G. The Factor of the State Border in the Life of the Population of the Pskov Region // Eastern Europe: Issues of Historical, Social, and Political Geography: Collection of Scientific Articles. Pskov: Publishing House of PGPPI, 2003. Pp. 190-200.
-
Manakov A. G. At the Intersection of Civilizations: Ethnocultural Geography of Western Russia and the Baltic States. Pskov: Publishing House of PGPPI, 2004.
-
Manakov A. G. Interethnic Relations and Ethnic Stereotypes of the Population of the Western Borderland of Russia // Smolenshchina is Multinational: Ethnic Stereotypes and the Borders of Intercultural Understanding: Collection of Scientific Articles. Smolensk: Smolensk State University, 2005. Pp. 94-99.
-
Manakov A. G., Grigorieva N. V. Regional Identity and Migration Intentions of the Population of the Pskov Borderland of Russia // Mahilyow Meridian: Scientific and Methodological Journal. Mahilyow, 2007. Vol. 7, No. 3-4 (10-11). Pp. 29-35.
-
Manakov A. G., Grigorieva N. V. Degree of Life Satisfaction and Sociocultural Orientations of the Population of the Border Areas of the Pskov Region // Pskov Regional Journal. No. 4. Pskov: PGPU, 2007. Pp. 77-87.
-
Region of Cooperation. Issue 2 (20): Kaliningrad Society: Problems of Consolidation and Stratification / A. P. Klemyshev, G. M. Fedorov [et al.]. Kaliningrad: Publishing House of KGU, 2003.
-
Region of Cooperation. Issue 6 (31): Kaliningrad Society: Based on the Results of Sociological Surveys 2001-2004 / Ed. A. P. Klemyshev. Kaliningrad: Publishing House of KGU, 2004.
-
Region of Cooperation. Issue 17 (42): The Region in Conditions of Globalization / Ed. A. P. Klemyshev. Kaliningrad: Publishing House of KGU, 2004.
[1] The study was conducted with the support of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation.