December 18 is International Migrant Day. It can hardly be called a holiday in our country. Why Russians are unfriendly to visitors and whether they have always been treated like that, what the closure of the Biryulyovo vegetable warehouse turned out to be for Muscovites and why it is impossible to expel migrants, the director of the Levada Center, Lev Gudkov, told Psychologies.
Psychologies: When did nationalist sentiments begin to emerge in our country?
Lev Gudkov: This is an old trend. According to our research, since the mid-90s, after a severe crisis, a decline in living standards and market reforms, nationalism began to rise. Then it was protective and compensatory, associated with experiencing the trauma of the collapse of the USSR, with the loss of Soviet identity and the growth of a national inferiority complex. This was a very important moment in the 90s: the feeling of a historical dead end, which was experienced so strongly and resulted in hostility and antipathy towards the West, towards visitors (including those from other regions of Russia).
The peak of nationalism came in 2003-2005. Then it reached its maximum values and was twice as high as the European average (there are classic countries of xenophobia – Hungary, Austria, Poland). After 2005, the level of xenophobia began to decrease, the situation in the country was calm, and the standard of living grew. And after the crisis of 2008-2009, there is again a wave of nationalism. But he is already a somewhat different character and is associated with a fall in confidence in power. The feeling of instability and uncertainty after the crisis was accompanied by increased demands on the authorities, but it did not fulfill them and did not justify them. At first, the feeling of injustice and insecurity of the population turned into pogroms on Manezhnaya Square. Then this phenomenon began to repeat in the form of local explosions.
Read more:
- “I want to be among you and not be afraid of evil”
But I repeat: the current xenophobia is a displaced aggression, it is a transference. Dissatisfaction is caused by the authorities, and it is directed at visitors. There is a feeling that they encroach on our privileges, take away the allowances intended for us. Own dependence and dissatisfaction make us hope for the restoration of the ethnic hierarchy: for advantages, for social benefits, for privileges, for work.
Psychologies: Is the influx of migrants and a similar reaction of society to it inevitable?
L.G.: The country needs an influx of labor, the population is aging (according to statistics, 27% of the population are pensioners), the labor market is also aging, there are not enough people. We have a deficit of about 5 million workers, and this data is unevenly distributed, the unemployment rate is different everywhere. It is clear that 40% of the migration flow is concentrated in Moscow and adjacent regions. Our economy can no longer be without “foreign” hands. For example, the transport system and construction are provided mainly at the expense of visitors. And xenophobia is, in a sense, a characteristic phenomenon, a characteristic reaction to the influx. And in this sense, Russia is now experiencing everything that all developed countries have gone through.
Psychologies: Why not do what many would like to do: drive out the visitors?
L.G.: Yes, approximately 2/3 believe that it is necessary to protect Moscow from visitors. But, firstly, this is simply impossible: there are about 6 million migrants in the country, that is, 9% of the economically active population. How do you export them all, by what means? Secondly, such a step will lead to a sharp decline in living standards. For example, the closure of the Biryulyovo base, which supplied 40% of vegetables throughout Moscow, led to a rise in the price of vegetables by 15%. People just don’t understand the price of this closing yet.
In general, such sentiments are artificially created (except for marginal movements), in general, the population treats visitors rather calmly. This is all the subject of propaganda, speculation by the authorities. It is no coincidence that before the mayoral elections, this topic was number one for all candidates, regardless of their political orientation. The authorities incite migrants, for example, by reporting that most of the crimes are committed by them (which is not true). At the same time, the authorities are afraid of pogroms and are trying to extinguish them. In general, it is interested in migrants, otherwise incomes will fall.
Psychologies: How dangerous is nationalism, from your professional point of view?
L.G.: From a sociological point of view, this is consolidation with one’s past, this is a symptom of a lack of development, stagnation. That is, society is becoming more and more primitive and unstructured. In addition, the manifestation of aggression towards any group speaks of the intolerance of society as a whole and inevitably leads to marginalization. Such an attitude towards visitors will lead to unpleasant economic consequences and will affect the general standard of living. Nationalism will cause the growth of aggression, violence and disorganization of society.
Psychologies: Is it possible to make predictions for the future based on nationalist sentiment?
L.G.: I think nationalism will only increase. There is no room for proposing different positions, for discussing possible solutions to social problems. All unsolvable problems go into the shadows and break through with irrational outbursts. If everything remains the same, dissatisfaction with this state of affairs will also grow, and this will be expressed in the form of nationalism. I don’t see any other resources – ideological, cultural, political.