Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis reveals simulative nature of Russia's national-cultural autonomy legislation, indicating cultural and ethnic complexities.
The article addresses the paradox of the Russian legislation on nonterritorial, aka “national-cultural” autonomy – the lack of utilitarian ends and functions combined with a high domestic public demand for it. The author seeks to explain the case as simulation, or activities for the sake of demonstrating activities without definite substantive purposes. The analysis reveals that the relevant law’s goals and justifications voiced by the stakeholders were merely a combination of socially acceptable opinions unrelated to result-oriented action. These opinions were part of a common-sense worldview based on group-centric and essentialist vision of ethnicity and on neoliberal postulates, such as the need to foster bottom-up initiative and self-organization, the rejection of governmental social obligations, and the need for strict regulatory mechanisms securing fair relationships among the players. A brief comparison with a similar case in Europe reveals that simulation can take place in other contexts related to nonterritorial autonomy. Thus, a focus on simulative action must be a promising approach for research concerning the imaginaries of groups as entities and actors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alexander Osipov (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: