Log in to star items.
- Convenors:
-
Natalya Kosmarskaya
(Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences)
Gulnara Dadabayeva (KIMEP University)
Send message to Convenors
- Chair:
-
Kalamkas Yessimova
(Astana IT University, PORI)
- Format:
- Panel
- Theme:
- Sociology & Social Issues
Abstract
This panel brings together four papers that examine ethnic migration in Central Eurasia not simply as movement across borders, but as a process that reshapes relations within co-ethnic communities, redefines belonging, and generates new political and social dilemmas. Focusing on Armenians in Russia, ethnic Kazakh repatriates, Russians from Uzbekistan resettled in Siberia, and Germans leaving Kazakhstan, the panel explores how migration reveals the unstable boundaries of ethnicity, homeland, and return.
Taken together, the papers highlight a shared paradox: ethnic affinity does not automatically produce solidarity, while “return” to a putative homeland or co-ethnic environment often generates new forms of difference, tension, and exclusion.
The Armenian case shows how diverse Armenian groups, shaped by different migration trajectories and socializations, negotiate competing claims to “true Armenianness” in Russia, in comparison with the co-ethnic interaction in Armenia between the locals and members of the Western diaspora.
The paper on Russians from Uzbekistan similarly demonstrates that even migrants returning to a linguistically and culturally familiar environment may experience acculturative stress and be perceived as “other Russians,” revealing the fragility of as-sumed sameness.
The study of ethnic Kazakh repatriation shifts the focus to state policy, tracing how Kazakhstan’s institutions and legal frameworks have managed the return of co-ethnics and how official discourse has evolved from ethnic-romantic narratives of homeland to more pragmatic state-centered logics.
Finally, the paper on Germans from Kazakhstan analyzes the reverse dynamic: how the absence of territorial autonomy, combined with post-Soviet economic dislocation, contributed to large-scale outmigration and the erosion of prospects for collective reproduction in place.
The panel is united by a common concern with the interaction between migration regimes, nationalizing states, and identity formation. It also offers a comparative and interdisciplinary perspective, combining migration studies, anthropology, sociology, and policy analysis. By juxtaposing return migration, forced resettlement, co-ethnic incorporation, and ethnic out-migration, the panel shows that Central Eurasia is a particularly productive space for understanding how ethnicity is institutionalized, contested, and lived in conditions of mobility. More broadly, it speaks to current debates on diaspora, homeland politics, and the unintended consequences of ethnically framed migration policies.
Accepted papers
Abstract
Labor migrants constitute the majority of migration flows into the Russian Federa-tion. Over the past two decades, both Russian and international scholars have focused primarily on the integration of ethnically non-Russian migrants into Russian society, whereas the adaptation of forced migrants (predominantly Russians/Russian-speaking populations) from the Central Asian republics in Russia was examined most intensive-ly in the 1990s. Since the mid-2000s, scholarly and policy attention in Russia has shifted increasingly toward the implementation of targets set by the “State Program for Assisting the Voluntary Resettlement to the Russian Federation of Compatriots Living Abroad”.
Drawing on fieldwork data (interviewing) collected in Uzbekistan starting from 2015 and up to 2023, and in different Siberian cities between 2021 and 2023, this presentation examines significance of the various causes of forced ethnic migration at different stages of resettlement to Siberia as well as the identity dynamics and adapta-tion strategies of forced migrants in this region. From 1996 onward, it became a leading destination for the Russian forced migrants due to its transport accessibility to the Cen-tral Asian states and affordable living costs.
Forced migrants became an important source of demographic growth in the Sibe-rian Federal District, while their high levels of education and professional qualifica-tions were in demand. However, despite returning to a culturally familiar environment and despite their knowledge of the Russian language and Russia’s cultural traditions, forced migrants experienced a sort of “acculturative stress” and were perceived be the receiving population as “the other Russians”. In some cases, interaction between this group and the host community was marked by conflict and tension. The origins of these misunderstandings will also be addressed in the presentation.
Abstract
The Armenian experience offers a compelling example of intra-group contacts and their social consequences. These contacts often reveal tensions and misunderstandings despite shared ethnicity.
A distinctive feature of the Armenian case is its unique territorial fragmentation. First, the fraught interactions between different Armenian groups in the 20th–21st centuries unfolded primarily within the Armenian SSR and later independent Armenia – the singular “homeland” to which one could “return.”
Since the late Soviet period and beyond, Russia became the second key site for mass interactions among diverse Armenian groups. Initially, these involved refugees from Azerbaijan and war-torn Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as “forced migrants” from the other post-Soviet states (Georgia and Central Asian countries).
As economic hardships in Armenia itself intensified, tens of thousands of its residents began migrating to Russia as labor migrants, alongside Armenians from the above-mentioned regions for whom Armenia had served as a transit territory.
Thus, for several decades Russia has served as a meeting-ground for highly diverse Armenian groups. Armenians who have resided in Russia since imperial/Soviet times, often for multiple generations (in Krasnodar Krai, Rostov Oblast, and other re-gions), should also be added to this list.
Drawing on in-depth interviews conducted in Russia between 2018-2024, we analyze the nature, forms, and popular interpretations of intra-group tensions in comparison with similar dynamics in Armenia involving locals and Western diaspora returnees.
Our findings reveal that while socio-economic and political contexts in Russia have changed since the turbulent 1990s, tensions between different Armenians still exist, shifting from public to private domains and affecting neighborhood relations, friendships, and marriage choices. Central to these tensions is a discourse of authenticity surrounding what constitutes "true Armenianness," particularly regarding gender roles, family structures and traditions, and engagement with Armenian historical narratives.
Universal social dimensions like urban-rural divides and socio-cultural disparities also influence intra-group relationships, on a par with degrees of adherence to "traditional lifestyles". The research emphasizes the continued relevance of historical experiences and diverse socialization contexts in shaping contemporary Armenian identities in Russia.
Abstract
This paper analyzes the large-scale outmigration of ethnic Germans from Kazakhstan by focusing on two key structural factors: the absence of a national-territorial unit and the economic transformations that accompanied the post-Soviet de-industrialization of Kazakhstan. The origins of the German presence in Kazakhstan are closely connected with the forced deportations of the 1930s–1940s, particularly the abolition of the Volga German Autonomous Republic in 1941 and the subsequent relocation of hundreds of thousands of Germans to Central Asia. As a result, Soviet Germans lost not only their homeland but also the institutional framework necessary for the preservation of their political and cultural identity.
Unlike several other deported ethnic groups in the Soviet Union, Germans were never able to restore their national autonomy. Although the German population gradually integrated into Kazakhstan’s economic and social life and played an important role in agriculture, industry, and the development of the virgin lands, the absence of a recognized national-territorial entity continued to shape their collective identity and long-term prospects.
The collapse of the Soviet Union introduced new economic challenges, including the decline of industrial production and structural de-industrialization in the 1990s. These processes disproportionately affected highly skilled industrial workers, many of whom were ethnic Germans. Combined with the absence of institutional guarantees for cultural and political development, these economic transformations became a major push factor that stimulated large-scale migration of Kazakhstan’s Germans to Germany in the post-Soviet period.
Abstract
This study examines the three-decade trajectory of Kazakhstan’s ethnic return migration policy, focusing specifically on the institutional and legal evolution that has shaped the repatriation of ethnic Kazakhs (Oralman/Qandastar) since independence. Since the early 1990s, Kazakhstan has implemented one of the world's most proactive and sustained repatriation programs, driven by the dual imperatives of post-Soviet nation-building and demographic rebalancing in a multi-ethnic landscape. While the initial years of the program were characterized by urgent, often ad-hoc legislative frameworks designed to facilitate a rapid "return to the homeland," the policy has since undergone significant structural transformations.
The research traces this shift from early reactive measures toward a more sophisticated, centralized, and bureaucratic institutional apparatus. By analyzing the longitudinal development of the "Law on Migration" and its various amendments, the paper illustrates how the state has sought to codify the rights, quotas, and integration processes for returnees. Central to this analysis is the evolving role of state bodies, most notably the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection, which has increasingly integrated migration management into broader national labor and economic strategies.
Furthermore, the study explores a critical ideological transition in state discourse: the move from a purely primordial, ethnic "homeland" narrative toward a more utilitarian and pragmatic approach. This shift reflects the state's attempt to reconcile the symbolic importance of the diaspora with the practical socio-economic challenges of integration, regional settlement patterns, and domestic labor market needs. By critically analyzing these institutional and discursive shifts, the paper provides a comprehensive overview of how Kazakhstan has navigated the complexities of managing a large-scale diaspora return. Ultimately, the study argues that the evolution of Qandastar policy serves as a primary lens through which to understand the broader project of strengthening sovereign statehood and national identity in contemporary Central Asia.