Olga Belokhvostova: Symbol Consumption and adoption of immigrants.
Olga Belokhvostova
Yaroslavl Demidov State University, chair of social and political studies
There is a myth that the developed societies do not need immigrants. The demographic situation and inquiries of the labour market blast it. The migrants who just have arrived to the country, with rare exception, don’t feel themselves included in an active social life. Their integration cannot occur automatically and demands various mechanisms. One of them is a formation of the certain symbolical field that can both assist adoption of immigrants or not.
Process of consumption comes out on the top in a new western way of life that extends widely in the world. It is not just a way of satisfaction of the minimal human needs. It turned in a cult that promoted by the institutes of socialization. Consumption of symbols takes on special significance in political sphere. Especially, this process became more actual with the development of mass communication that gives unprecedented chance for manipulation. Thus, there is an opportunity to form the firm identity: we are Americans, we are Russians. How does "unfamiliar" bodies such as immigrants are built in this discourse?
For example, the French consumer receives only symbols of French culture without an impurity of others. The absence of "Muslim" announcers on TV, and weak representation "not the Frenchmen" in national assembly in the state that has 5,8 mln Muslims verify this thesis. The Russian consumer gets the similar message. The feature of a discourse devoted to migrants in Russia is not simple recognitions of distinction of cultures, but also belief in genetic incompatibility among some of them. That is how appearing dichotomizing pairs: "Caucasians" - "Russians", "Chinese" - "Russians". Therefore "non-Russians" have a choice: actively exist without ethnic features, or not to have social lifts, keeping them. So in Russia we have a homogeneous discourse at a symbolical level while there is more that 150 ethnic groups exist in the country.
The American society (which M. Walzer carries to the immigrant one) offers absolutely other variant of coexistence of ethnoses. One of its features is the formation of another discursive fields. The society has build on the immigrants. That is why the American discourse abounds with symbols of various cultures: the Mexican food, the French cosmetics, the Italian art. Through acceptance of the average representation of these cultures mass consumption washes away borders of identity within the limits of the country. It proves with the fact of desperate search of new identity, which is popular in the American society.
Thus, a question of the influence of individual consumption on identity and attitudes towards immigrants is ambiguous. In many respects these processes depend on administrative practices, positions of federal and regional elites, ethnic groups and expert community. The intensity of the ethnocentric discourse is up to these actors.
Yaroslavl Demidov State University, chair of social and political studies
There is a myth that the developed societies do not need immigrants. The demographic situation and inquiries of the labour market blast it. The migrants who just have arrived to the country, with rare exception, don’t feel themselves included in an active social life. Their integration cannot occur automatically and demands various mechanisms. One of them is a formation of the certain symbolical field that can both assist adoption of immigrants or not.
Process of consumption comes out on the top in a new western way of life that extends widely in the world. It is not just a way of satisfaction of the minimal human needs. It turned in a cult that promoted by the institutes of socialization. Consumption of symbols takes on special significance in political sphere. Especially, this process became more actual with the development of mass communication that gives unprecedented chance for manipulation. Thus, there is an opportunity to form the firm identity: we are Americans, we are Russians. How does "unfamiliar" bodies such as immigrants are built in this discourse?
For example, the French consumer receives only symbols of French culture without an impurity of others. The absence of "Muslim" announcers on TV, and weak representation "not the Frenchmen" in national assembly in the state that has 5,8 mln Muslims verify this thesis. The Russian consumer gets the similar message. The feature of a discourse devoted to migrants in Russia is not simple recognitions of distinction of cultures, but also belief in genetic incompatibility among some of them. That is how appearing dichotomizing pairs: "Caucasians" - "Russians", "Chinese" - "Russians". Therefore "non-Russians" have a choice: actively exist without ethnic features, or not to have social lifts, keeping them. So in Russia we have a homogeneous discourse at a symbolical level while there is more that 150 ethnic groups exist in the country.
The American society (which M. Walzer carries to the immigrant one) offers absolutely other variant of coexistence of ethnoses. One of its features is the formation of another discursive fields. The society has build on the immigrants. That is why the American discourse abounds with symbols of various cultures: the Mexican food, the French cosmetics, the Italian art. Through acceptance of the average representation of these cultures mass consumption washes away borders of identity within the limits of the country. It proves with the fact of desperate search of new identity, which is popular in the American society.
Thus, a question of the influence of individual consumption on identity and attitudes towards immigrants is ambiguous. In many respects these processes depend on administrative practices, positions of federal and regional elites, ethnic groups and expert community. The intensity of the ethnocentric discourse is up to these actors.
posted by A. | 4:39 PM
<< Home