Eleanor Knott. Kin Majorities: Identity and Citizenship in Crimea and Moldova

Eleanor Knott's sophisticated account provides original insights into the kin-state politics of identity and citizenship in Moldova and Crimea. Theoretically, the inquiry is anchored in the broader constructivist tradition in social sciences. Specifically, it adopts the everyday nationalism paradigm, which examines the production of identities and related practices as a bottom-up rather top-down, elite-driven process. Methodologically, the volume falls within the qualitative camp because the author's reflections on national identity in Moldova and Crimea are based on information derived mainly from semistructured interviews conducted during 2012 and 2013 and from the author's profound knowledge of the region. Knott proceeds inductively and examines what it means to be part of the kin majority in Moldova (Moldovan/Romanian) and Crimea (Russian/Ukrainian). Instead of starting with predefined classifications, she analyzes the statements of her interviewees, all of whom represent the kin majority, and detects new identity-related categories. Her elaborate typologies reveal novel dimensions of the citizenship-identity nexus in Moldova and Crimea, pointing to unexplored, complex relations between individual self-identification and the citizenship policies of the kin-state.Several results stand out. First, Knott successfully engages in an exercise of kin majority deconstruction. In doing so, she finds out that "kin majorities in Crimea and Moldova do not emerge as coherent majorities but as assemblages of different constituencies with different meanings of identity" (p. 21). By focusing on the individual level, the author refrains from making sweeping arguments about group identities, preferring instead to highlight the mosaic of identities constituting the kin majority in both contexts. Such a breakdown of kin majorities into subgroups is associated with several plural forms of identification: nested, crosscutting, separated, and competing. The resulting picture is multifaceted, defying simplistic binaries and official census codes that superficially arrange individuals into neat majorities and minorities.Second, the Crimean case is particularly fascinating because the fieldwork predates the 2014 annexation by Russia. When drawing inferences about Crimea's residents, the author cautiously set boundaries and selected interviewees from the kin majority, leaving out minorities such as Tatars and Armenians. Next, Knott identified five subgroups within her sample: politicized Russians, ethnic Russians, political Ukrainians, Crimeans, and ethnic Ukrainians (p. 72). Out of all the subgroups, the politicized Russians appeared as the least integrated into Ukrainian society, resisting what they perceived as a policy of Ukrainization and embracing the type of narratives that accompanied the Russian annexations of Ukrainian territories in 2014 and 2022. Knott's findings suggest that the kin majority in Crimea was a fragmented group, lacking a coherent vision of what the relations with the kin-state should look like and often criticizing Russia's compatriot policy. Given the fractured nature of the kin majority prior to annexation, the vote in favor of joining Russia during the questionable 2014 referendum appears misleading because it projects an image of illusory unity, which was used by Moscow to legitimize the occupation. It is reasonable to assume that after annexation, the composition of the kin majority was significantly homogenized as the Russian state coercively eliminated the Ukrainian language from the school curriculum and pressured residents to accept its citizenship. Knott is extremely cautious and steers away from speculations about the future. As the war in Ukraine drags on and as Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, vows to drive out the Russian military from Crimea, one wonders whether and how the fractured kin majority analyzed by Knott would react to such a hypothetical scenario.Third, the Moldovan case is equally intriguing. Knott draws on original sources and offers a thorough account of the intricacies of the identity-citizenship nexus in this so-called borderland state. Multiple citizenships and volatile self-identification patterns make Moldova a fertile ground for testing constructivist theories of nationalism. The author demonstrates that the kin majority in Moldova is not actually a cohesive group when viewed from the bottom up; instead, it is a fractured identity puzzle. Much like in Crimea, Knott detects several subcategories within the kin majority: organic Romanians, cultural Romanians, ambivalent Romanians, Moldovans, and linguistic Moldovans, each relating to the kin-state and the home state in a unique way (p. 154). Knott deserves praise for going beyond the Moldovan/Romanian dichotomy traditionally used to study nation building in Moldova. The author finds Romania's generous citizenship policy vis-à-vis the Moldovan state a bit problematic, observing that it may generate unintended consequences in the long run. Such concerns seem unwarranted because there are numerous states administering similar citizenship programs. Still, Knott's interrogations are reasonable as she displays a predilection for explanations emphasizing the symbolic and identity-related aspects of citizenship at the expense of more mundane, instrumental accounts, which would highlight the cost-benefit analysis behind individual decisions to apply for citizenship.It would be interesting to apply Knott's method of deconstructing kin majorities in other multicultural contexts, exploring meanings attached to nationhood elsewhere. Are kin majorities in Western and non-European contexts as fractured as the ones in Moldova and Crimea? Or is this a phenomenon linked exclusively to belated nation-building processes unfolding only in one region?This superb volume is well-researched and innovative in its treatment of kin majorities in borderland settings, where fluid and hybrid identities are persistently contested by multiple states. Firmly grounded in the qualitative research tradition, the author approaches the topic in a systematic manner. This excellent piece of scholarship contributes significantly to the field of nationalism studies and to our understanding of national identities in an increasingly turbulent region.