SUMMARY:

Like many European countries Russia has experienced post-colonial processes of mass migration from the former borderlands of the USSR in the past 15-20 years. These processes gave rise to social tensions that were permeated by a distinct anti-immigrant attitude. This article attempts to find a general pattern in attitudes towards migrants and demonstrate the links between this pattern and the widespread mindset that shapes the perception of social reality in contemporary Russia. This article does not discuss migrants and their culture; it explores the image of migrants in political, administrative, and public discourse as well as in the discourse of the immigration experts. In particular, the author discusses in a critical light the dubious scholarly expertise that underpins anti-migrant legislation.
The article explores the process of racialization of the “Other” and the development of the local euphemisms “blacks” or “persons of Caucasian nationality.” The image of this particular “Other” is tied to the concept of a distinct “national character” or “mentality,” which in turn appears to be anchored in the concept of biological determination. This discourse hinges upon the ideological constructs that were elaborated by Soviet and post Soviet scholars and experts who introduced such operational categories as “local civilization,” “ethnos,” “superethnos,” “ecology of culture,” “passionarnost',” and “ethno-cultural portrait.” On the other hand, this discourse includes relatively recent borrowings from Western racial discourses (“the threshold of tolerance,” “archetype,” “cultural distance”). The two traditions in combination constitute the intellectual landscape of contemporary Russia that is highly conducive to the rise of cultural racism. The phobia of migrants in present day Russia is also aimed at ethnic-Russian immigrants which makes it possible to rule out a connection between anti-immigrant sentiment and the discourse of ethnic nationalism. The key role in this new situation is played by culturally constructed oppositions, such as “local/non-local,” and “indigenous/non-indigenous.” These oppositions are actualized and should be understood in the context of claims of privileged social and political statuses, which is typical for the structure of imperial relations.