Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 114 (2014) 415 – 419
4th World Conference on Psychology, Counselling and Guidance WCPCG-2013
Ethnic identity as an ethnic identity aggregate value orientations Sakhiyeva F. a , Berdibayeva S. b, Shomanbayeva A c., Kalkhojayeva A. d. , Al-Farabi Kazakh National University Kazakh National University Al-FarabiAl-Farabi 71, M.Auezov South Kazakhstan University M.Auezov South Kazakhstan University
Abstract In the article the scientific interest in identifying cross-cultural and cross-national differences in the priorities of values of people of similar social groups should apply to the analysis of the concept of ethnic identity, is an ethnic-filled values of personality. One of the components that make up the internal structure of the individual, is its ethnic identity, which is understood by us as people's awareness of their membership in a particular social and ethnic group, reflecting on the situation of the nation in the system of social relations, understanding of national interests. Ethnic identity has its own psychological structure, its structure. A key indicator of ethnic identity - the language of the ethnic group, which is a bearer of a wide range of characters unity of members of this ethnic group, the similarities between himself and unlike other means of awakening of ethnic identity, assimilation of ethnic history, cultural values, the deciding factor of ethnic identity. © 2013 2013 The The Authors. Authors.Published Publishedby byElsevier ElsevierLtd. Ltd.Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. © Selection EducationIstanbul and Research Selection and and peer-review peer-reviewunder underresponsibility responsibilityofofAcademic Prof. Dr. World Tülay Bozkurt, KulturCenter. University, Turkey Keywords: ethnic identity, ethnic identity, traditions, folklore, ethnofunctional approach, sociocultural, psychological characteristics:
The usage of values and valuable orientations are categorised by psychological science extremely actually in understanding of modern ethnic processes in Kazakhstan. It is a way of formation of national idea and new model of interaction of ethnos; understanding of process of transformation of ethnicity, taking place on the joint of various cultures; and, at last, creations of mechanisms of anticipation and exception of national intensity and conflicts. In the context of our research valuable orientations are internalized identity of value of ethnic social groups in the form of vital strategic objectives and the world outlook reference points forming an ethnic picture of the personality world. /1-5,7,8/ .The process of an interiorization is carried out via the psychological mechanisms connected with assignment of the general fund of concept educations (Dzhakupov’s S. M. concept)/1/, the mechanism "motive shift on the purpose" (Leontyev’s A.N. concept. ) mechanism of identification, reflection, etc. The results of research of values and valuable orientations of student's youth of the Russian and Kazakh ethnos of Shymkent in the course of training are stated in this article. In research we used theoretical situation that the youthful (student's) age is decisive to the periods of development of ethnic consciousness of its consolidation and fastening (E.Erikson, V.Yu.Hotinets, Zh.T.Utaliyeva, etc.).
.
Corresponding author name. Sakhiyeva F Tel.: +09876543214 E-mail address: Sakhiyeva
[email protected]
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.722
416
F. Sakhiyeva et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 114 (2014) 415 – 419
Kazakhs(monoet hn) about Russians
Russians polyethnicabo ut
Russians (polyethn)abo utKazakhs
Kazakhs (polyethn) about
Kazakhs(polyeth n) about Russians
Kazakhs (monoethn) about mthemselves
Russians momnoethnica bout themselves
№
Russians (monoethn)ab outKazakhs
It is known that Russians and Kazakhs treat the people with the expressed cultural distance. Thereof, we assumed existence of features in structure of values of students of the Kazakh and Russian ethnos caused by ethnic factors of socialization: experience of interethnic interaction and the characteristic of the ethno contact environment (in our case – polyethnicity and monoethnicity of structure of educational groups). We proceeded from the following specific features of the South Kazakhstan area, namely: 1) High degree of combination, multinationality 2) Historical experience of cohabitation of Kazakhs and Russians in the region 3) the tendency to reduction of the Russian component (departure out of RK limits), thus – increase in number and change of ethnicity of title ethnos (at the expense of migration oralmans) 4) considerable, superiority in strength of title ethnos over non-title ethnoses, (Russians in the region represent ethnic minority, and Kazakhs act as dominant ethnos). 5) Tendency to increase in representation of title ethnos in ethnic structure of the cities at the expense of inflow of villagers. The above predetermined the solution of the problem of establishment of similarities and distinctions in structure of youth values of the Kazakh and Russian ethnos in the dimension range "individualism collectivism". 402 students of the Kazakh and Russian nationalities who are training on the Russian and Kazakh departments of economic, historical and psychological faculties of M. Auezov South Kazakhstan State University (SKSU) and Shymkent branches of the Kazakhstan-Russian Institute (KRI) of Modern Humanitarian Academy, the Baltic State Technical University (BSTU St. Petersburg) acted as respondents of our research. 240 respondents of the Kazakh nationality, (being trained in groups with Russian and the Kazakh language of training) 96 - the Russian nationality, 66 – other nationalities are interrogated. Protocols of research of the last respondents in research weren't analyzed. The middle age - 20,5 years. 223 girls and 179 young men took part in the research. The choice of these higher education institutions isn't casual. The ethno sociological analysis testifies to a superiority in strength of representatives of title ethnos in student's audience of SKSU and considerable overweight of the Russian ethnos and other Russian-speaking representatives of non title ethnos in KRI, BSTU motivated with prospect of obtaining the diploma of "the Russian sample" at other rather equal with other higher education institutions of the city training conditions. Collecting empirical data took place by means of questionnaire, interview, questioning, conversations, the included supervision, with application of methods of mathematical processing of results. Degree of proximity of valuable structures of consciousness of students of the Kazakh and Russian ethnos were studied by means of the methodical tools "Cultural-valuable differential" (CVD), developed T.U.Soldatova, I.M.Kuznetsova and S. V. Ryzhova/6/. Let's pass to the analysis of distinctions in valuable structures of consciousness of the studied ethnic groups received by the technique "Cultural- valuable differential" (see tab. 1). We noted a tendency to manifestation of distinctions of cultural and valuable characteristics at Kazakhs and Russians in diads: Kazakhs mono - and polyethnic groups, Russians mono- and polyethnic groups, Kazakhs – Russians of monoethnic groups. Estimating results on the scale "Orientation to group –to yourself", we can say that Kazakhs are more focused on group than Russians Table 1 Coefficients of expressiveness of the qualities received by the technique "Cultural-valuable differential" (%)
51,1 51,1 58,8 63,7 55,9
77,8 55,5 44,4 46,8 77,8
73,3 40,1 75,5 57,9 66,8
73,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 100
20 46,7 53,3 53,3 46,7
Orientation to each other –to yourself 1 2 3 4 5
Mutual assistance Dissociation Subordination Independence Fidelity to traditions
45 56,7 58,3 71,7 65
40 58 73 52 63
88,3 50,1 60,7 53,9 90,2
417
F. Sakhiyeva et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 114 (2014) 415 – 419 6 Destruction of traditions 7 Openness Orientation to changes
30 56,7
45 48
49,1 85,4
50,9 48,1
37,9 75,6
31,1 62,3
53,3 73,3
33,3 60
8 Asociality 9 Tendency in the future 10 Tendency to the past 11 Aptitude to risk 12 Carefulness Orientation to interaction
21,7 80 48,3 80 60
27 62 73 65 57
46,2 72,6 55,1 72,7 62,8
63,9 68,6 52,9 48 74,6
69 48,9 66,7 57,8 53,3
57,9 55,6 40 68,9 46,7
53,3 73,3 66,7 53,3 60
60 40 60 46,7 73,3
13 Peacefulness 14 Aggression 15 Geniality 16 Coldness 17 Compliance 18 Rivalry Orientation to the power 19 Discipline 20 Willfulness 21 Law-abidingness 22 Anarchy 23 Respect of the power 24 Mistrust to the power
68,3 48,3 60 31,7 43,3 68,3
48 68 53 68 62 73
79,6 46,1 82,4 44,3 59,9 62,8
68,8 53 52 46,1 45,1 52,9
68,9 54,5 55,5 60 44,5 71,2
57,7 46,6 46,7 60,1 84,4 64,5
80 80 80 26,7 86,7 66,7
60 46,7 46,7 66,7 46,7 66,7
60 68,3 50 55 48,3 76,7
45 38 62 58 50 58
58,9 67,7 54,9 54 79,4 28,5
55,9 59,8 56,9 44,1 58,3 55
69 68,9 79,9 51,1 62,3 53,3
57,9 42,2 44,5 44,4 57,7 57,8
66,7 46,7 66,7 53,3 73,3 53,3
66,7 46,7 60 40 66,7 60
It is explained by that in We – images of Kazakhs (monoethnic and polyethnic groups) highly stereotypic there were qualities mutual assistance (88,3 % and 78,3%), fidelity to traditions (90,2% and 98,9%). They are rarer, in comparison with Russians, estimate their group as separated. High degree of expressiveness at the Russian monoethnic groups possess independence – 71,7% (whereas Russians of multiethnic groups estimate this quality in the self-stereotype – for 46,8%) Respectively, subordination is characterized by Russians of monoethnic groups for 48,3 %; Russians of multiethnic groups – 44,4%. Thus, Russians attribute a little big expressiveness of this quality to Kazakhs (73% and 75,5%) in comparison with that as Kazakhs find subordination at themselves (60,7% and 66,7%). Other disagreement in images between claims of members of this or that group to manifestation of certain qualities at representatives of personal and others' group we observe at the Russian monoethnic groups in an assessment of Kazakhs and Kazakhs of multiethnic groups, an assessment by them Russians. It should be noted that among highly stereotypic characteristics which have exceeded 70% a level of intra group coherence, the Russian multiethnic groups had mutual assistance and fidelity to traditions (that, however, isn't confirmed by heterostereotypes of Kazakhs). Similar "borrowing" of Russians can be explained with formation of the general fund of concept educations at Russians and Kazakhs of polyethnic groups at joint educational activity. Orientation to change. Russians and Kazakhs show the expressed orientation to openness to changes. But bigger radicalism show – Kazakhs and Russian students of monoethnic groups (76,6% and 72,2%, respectively). More expressed resistance to changes is characteristic for the Russian students of multiethnic groups. The results received on the scale "Orientation at each other" say that at the level of images of perception, students of the Kazakh ethnos (in comparison with the Russian selection) were adjusted on interaction. As it is obvious from table 6 data, they called big degree of expressiveness at themselves the qualities promoting the best understanding of each other and interaction: peacefulness, geniality and compliance, and smaller degree of expressiveness of the qualities interfering this interaction and mutual understanding: aggression, coldness and rivalry. Highly stereotypic expressiveness of orientation is to each other characteristic for Kazakhs of multiethnic groups. To a lesser degree it is presented at the Russian multiethnic groups. But it should be noted that representatives of the Russian ethnos (both groups) consider Kazakhs less peaceful and warm hearted, than Kazakhs think of themselves. And Kazakhs of multiethnic groups perceive Russians a little more inclined to rivalry, than it is present in self representations of Russians. Let's compare the results received on the scale "Orientation to the power". They are considered in the range: strong social control - weak social control. In structure of valuable orientations the Russian students of monoethnic
418
F. Sakhiyeva et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 114 (2014) 415 – 419
groups showed smaller dependence on social control than other studied groups. They noted at themselves highly stereotypic expressiveness of an indicator of mistrust to the power (76,7%) whereas Kazakhs of monoethnic groups pointed to weak expressiveness at themselves this quality, at the level of 28,5%, and quality of respect for the power estimated for 79,4%. Thus, in a continuum of psychological universaliya "individualism – collectivism", by consideration of four types of orientation, it is possible to make the following conclusions: at the level of images of perception Kazakhs in comparison with Russians represent collectivist culture. And differences are more accented in diads: Kazakhs and Russians of monoethnic groups, Kazakhs and Russians of multiethnic groups, and also Russians of multiethnic and monoethnic groups. The core of the semantic conflicting zone between Russians and Kazakhs of monoethnic groups is (coincidence coefficient: 0,68) orientation to group and orientation to the power . The Kazakh people show an image of the disciplined, law-abiding, predictable citizen with high rates of association with group and level of ethnic solidarity. While Russians (in their own opinion and, according to title groups) do not correspond to such style of behavior. They aren't so obedient, aren't so compliant and predictable as it would like title ethnos (but, - they are open, independent and vigorous). Probably, this resistance to the social control represented in the republic, mainly, by the power of the title population. Russians of multiethnic groups look more compliant and focused on group that is, apparently, way of adaptation in the conditions of active interethnic interaction. At the same time, between ethnos there is the broad base of mutual understanding which is expressing in a high rate of coincidence coefficient of representations of studied ethnic groups. Big expressiveness of integration tendencies we observe in a diad: Russians and Kazakhs of multiethnic groups (coincidence coefficient: 0,89) for which wider and interpenetrating border of a semantic zone consisting of characteristics, the exceeded 70% a level in group coherence is characteristic. It is mutual assistance, fidelity to traditions, openness, peacefulness and lawabidingness. Thus, the technique of KDD confirmed existence of international and cross-cultural distinctions in structure of valuable orientations of student's youth of the Russian and Kazakh ethnos caused by ethnic factors of socialization (in our case – mono - and polyethnicity structure of educational groups). Besides, it is found out that within one culture different valuable orientations are possible. The basis is created for this purpose by the polycultural environment – open and tolerant to various ethnocultural values. The data obtained at carrying out (DTO) G.U.Soldatova in studying of ethnic stereotypes of students mono - and multiethnic groups were in addition used when crossing role positions, I - an image, an image of the representative of the Kazakh ethnic group, an image of the representative of the Russian ethnic group (table 2), and also emotional and estimated indicators of selfstereotypes of studied groups on S. M. Dzhakupov's (table 3) technique. Table 2 - Matrix of an intercorelation of role positions of an image of Russian and Kazakh RМ
Image of the Kazakh Image of the Russian
I-image 0,21 0,71
КМ I-image 0,74 0,19
Rp I-image 0,37 0,68
Кp I-image 0,59 0,21
Table 3 – Emotional- estimating indicators of selfstereotypes of the Kazakh and Russian ethnos (orientation coefficient - Dsr) RM KM RP KP 0,68 0,75 0,61 0,48 Submitted data testify that I-image in monoethnic groups (RM, KM) highly correlates with images of the typical Kazakh or typical Russian that testifies the expressed monoethnic identification with the ethnic group. As for self-perception of respondents of multiethnic groups, for them along with the expressed coefficients of correlation with ethnic images of the groups also identification communication with images of other ethnos, meaning ambivalence of ethnic self-identification of students is characteristic. It allows to assume existence of dual biethnic identification, insignificant ethnic identity, and also identification with others ethnic group among the students who
F. Sakhiyeva et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 114 (2014) 415 – 419
419
are training in multiethnic on structure educational groups. Thus, polyethnic identity from the contents acts as a peculiar psychological filler of the concept "marginal ethnic status of the personality" (S. M. Dzhakupov, Zh.D. Zhukesheva). Let's notice that the emotional and estimated indicator of self stereotype of Kazakhs of monoethnic groups is much more positive than an emotional assessment of self stereotype of Russians mono - and polyiethnic groups. These data disperse from results of research of the functional nature of ethnic stereotypes of Kazakhs and the Russians which have been carried out on the basis of AGU in 1998 when the selfstereotype of Russians was more positive than selfstereotype of Kazakhs. This situation is explained by changes in the potential of the Kazakh ethnos, occurring at the present historical stage when Kazakhs had new valuable ideas of the self-sufficiency and importance of bigger independence. The phenomenon of decrease in positivity of an emotional assessment of the selfstereotype of ethnic groups in the multiethnic environment is known to science and is described in literature (G.U.Soldatov) /6/. Analyzing data on the subjective cultural distance, extent of identification with the ethnic group, and also emotionally estimated component of self stereotypes of studied ethnic groups, we formulate the following regularity: the higher is the identification level with the ethnic group, the more positively estimate representatives of this ethnos, they are inclined to note with the people neighbors the bigger cultural distance.
References Dzhakupov S. M. (2004). Psychological structure of training process . Almaty. The Kazakh universities,312p. Kluckhohn C. Strodtbeck F.L.(1961). Variationsin value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson. Lebedeva N. M.(2001). Valuable- motivational structure of the personality in the Russian culture//Psycol. magazine. T.22, No. 3. - Page 47-51 Soldatov G. U.(1999). Psychology of interethnic intensity. M: S, Smysl 998. - Page 165-194 Valuable orientations and ethnic prejudices as backbone elements of ethnic consciousness of the Shomanbayeva A.O. (2008). personality//Theoretical problems of ethnic and cross-cultural psychology: Materials of the International scientific conference. - Smolensk: Universum, T.2. - 424 pages
