Tishkov Tells Tatars the Difference between ‘Russky’ and ‘Rossiisky’ is Small and Quite Similar to Difference between English and British in the UK

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Jan. 3 – Few Russian scholars have been involved more heavily with defining the difference between “ethnic Russian” (russky) and “non-ethnic civic Russian” (rossiyky) than Academician Valery Tishkov, the former Russian nationalities minister and former head of the Moscow Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology.

            Now in the course of a long interview with Kazan’s Tatar-Inform news service, he argues that the difference between russky and rossiysky is small and resembles the difference between English and British in the United Kingdom (tatar-inform.ru/news/etnolog-tiskov-tatarstan-stal-primerom-stabilnosti-i-meznacionalnogo-soglasiya-6011442).

            Thus, he continues, ethnic Russians form “the main population of the state,” making it a nation state, and making this community “the core culture for the country in terms of language, faith and traditions,” adding that “there are also no ethnic Russians without Russia” but that as “these are not mutually exclusive concepts, there is no need to choose between them.”

            One can be both, Tishkov says, but the state identity is “primary, much more important than simply belonging to an ethnic group because citizenship gives one social protection: a pension, free education, the opportunity to enter a university, state-supported theatrical and musical schools, and protection from external threats. No ethnic community can do that.”

            “This doesn’t mean that everyone must say ‘I am above all a civic Russian.’ It can be the case that one can be above all a Muslim or a Tatar. In fact, surveys show that in the republics,” those who do are about equal to those who don’t. But in Russia as a whole, civic Russian identity dominates. 

            Tishkov says he is “a firm supporter of the idea that civic Russian and civic Russian people are the main categories. Unfortunately, this term isn’t in the Constitution; and when amendments were introduced, a lawyer colleague told him ‘Valery Aleksandrovich, the time for that hasn’t yet come. Wait a little.”

            Debates about the relationship of these two terms have been going on since 1991, the academician continues. Since then, he and others have been promoting the idea of civic nationhood. “it has entered nationality strategy documents and remains there, although some would now like to remove it and speak only about civilization … and not about a nation state.”

            This latest excursion of Tishkov into this minefield is certain to spark controversy with dissenters to be found among both ethnic Russians and non-Russians, the former concerned that their nationhood will be drowned in something like the Soviet people and the latter frightened that they will be suppressed altogether.

            In his remarks on this point this time around, the Russian ethnographer seems more concerned to defend himself against criticism from ethnic Russians than from non-Russians. But because he used a Tatar outlet to make this point, he is likely to find Tatars and other non-Russians thinking far more about Scotland than ever before.  

            Once Russian nationalists and Moscow recognize what that means, Tishkov may once again find himself in hot water.