Building a Tatar elite

Abstract

Tatarstan, a bi-cultural region in the Russian Federation, has been experiencing a significant revival of Tatar language, culture and ethnic identities during the post-Soviet period. This article examines the significance of language policy in schools, and elite Tatar schools in particular, for this Tatar renaissance. It describes the political context and institutional setting and uses qualitative research data to analyse ethnic identification among pupils, parents and teachers. It shows that language has central importance in the Tatar schools and is treated as essential to what it means to be Tatar. Till now, the `Tatarstan model' of partial autonomy within the Russian Federation has successfully accommodated ethnic diversity. However, asymmetries between `national' education in Tatar schools and predominantly Russian education in non-Tatar schools have potential to generate tensions, as the republic of Tatarstan develops its policies for interethnic relations, religion and culture

Language Policy and Education: Space and Place in Multilingual Post-Soviet States

“…11–12). In addition to the use of ethnography (Alvarez Veinguer & Davis, 2007; Brown, 2010), researchers have turned to historical analysis through archival investigations (Pauly, 2009), participant observation and interviews in schools (Friedman, 2009; Polese, 2010), and critical discourse analysis (Silova et al, in press). For these researchers, attention to the “micro-sociolinguistic” context provides rich insights into “the forces that shape language use, and the social and political impact of language use” (Bilaniuk & Melnyk, 2008, p. 357).…”

“…These findings point to the impact of the expanded function of the titular language both within and beyond school. In the case of Tatarstan, despite Russian being the language of opportunity in the Russian Federation more broadly, Tatar parents opt for participation in Tatar national schools, and voice strong support for their child's increased knowledge of the Tatar language since they understand this option will open access to the national elite (Alvarez Veinguer & Davis, 2007).…”

“…Historic asymmetrical bilingualism—what Dilans (2009) labeled as “Soviet-era bilingualism” (p. 7), with the so-called local (i.e., nonethnic Russian) populations bilingual in Russian and their mother tongue (and/or national language) and the Russians lacking skills in the local language—continues to exist in the post-Soviet period. Researchers have highlighted how this “one-way process” of asymmetrical bilingualism “reinforces feelings of injustice, unfairness, inequality, cultural domination and discrimination” (Alvarez Veinguer & Davis, 2007, p. 202). Recent research attests to the new language practices developing in response to this linguistic asymmetry and the emerging symmetrical bilingualism.…”

“…These post-Soviet developments echo historic commitments to utilize schools in the early 20th century to develop minority identities and languages; several researchers have drawn attention to this historic continuity between past and present language policy developments in schools. Alvarez Veinguer and Davis (2007) pointed to the central role schools play in the Tatar renaissance in Tatarstan (in the Russian Federation) and found the Tatar-language gymnasia to be “dedicated to monocultural and monoethnic transmission, echoing the institutions created during earlier stages of Tatar cultural revival. Their clear objective is to provide education based on national ethnic culture, and popular traditions” (p. 190).…”

“…For example, a Russian student in Estonia claimed, “In an Estonian school, we would have felt ourselves as ‘others’” (Nedelcu et al, 2010–11, p. 77). Alvarez Veinguer and Davis (2007) highlighted the identity outcomes maintained and generated by the bifurcated Tatar- and Russian-language schools. The “asymmetry of the language policy” in Tatarstan (in the Russian Federation) “encourages young Tatars to develop a unified ‘national’ identity, combining language, ethnicity, religion and other elements, which is not matched by the policy as it affects young Russians, who neither expect to speak Tatar nor are likely to express their identities in these terms” (Alvarez Veinguer & Davis, p. 187).…”