在欧亚大陆北部上演土著和本土

IF 3.4 2区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY
Alexander Osipov
{"title":"在欧亚大陆北部上演土著和本土","authors":"Alexander Osipov","doi":"10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The article analyzes the interaction between autochthony, or ethnic groups’ claims of first occupancy, and the promotion of indigenous rights. The article addresses this interconnection in Russia and Ukraine and considers the stakeholders’ major modes of framing and political opportunities structure in both countries. The empirical findings do not prove the assumption that demands and actions based on autochthony and indigeneity inevitably reinforce each other and boost political contentions. The author identifies three major cases of such interactions and concludes that most actors refrain from promoting ethnic autochthony and demonstrate reluctance in exploiting the rhetoric of indigenous rights. Russian government and ethnic activists have jointly marginalized autochthony and in fact tacitly decoupled it in public discourses from indigenous issues. Russia despite its comprehensive legal framework effectively curtails indigenous rights and confines them to the protection of subsistence economy. Ukraine, previously being reluctant to pursue an indigenous policy and to support autochthonous claims, after 2014 has been using indigenous agenda and conflating it with autochthony to contest Russia’s control over Crimea. The existing discursive and normative framework of indigeneity does not necessarily entail and fuel territorial claims but rather provides governments and non-state actors with room for de-politicizing maneuvers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12497,"journal":{"name":"Geoforum","volume":"160 ","pages":"Article 104222"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Staging indigeneity and autochthony in Northern Eurasia\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Osipov\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The article analyzes the interaction between autochthony, or ethnic groups’ claims of first occupancy, and the promotion of indigenous rights. The article addresses this interconnection in Russia and Ukraine and considers the stakeholders’ major modes of framing and political opportunities structure in both countries. The empirical findings do not prove the assumption that demands and actions based on autochthony and indigeneity inevitably reinforce each other and boost political contentions. The author identifies three major cases of such interactions and concludes that most actors refrain from promoting ethnic autochthony and demonstrate reluctance in exploiting the rhetoric of indigenous rights. Russian government and ethnic activists have jointly marginalized autochthony and in fact tacitly decoupled it in public discourses from indigenous issues. Russia despite its comprehensive legal framework effectively curtails indigenous rights and confines them to the protection of subsistence economy. Ukraine, previously being reluctant to pursue an indigenous policy and to support autochthonous claims, after 2014 has been using indigenous agenda and conflating it with autochthony to contest Russia’s control over Crimea. The existing discursive and normative framework of indigeneity does not necessarily entail and fuel territorial claims but rather provides governments and non-state actors with room for de-politicizing maneuvers.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12497,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geoforum\",\"volume\":\"160 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104222\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geoforum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718525000223\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoforum","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718525000223","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了原住民族的优先占有主张与原住民族权利的提升之间的互动关系。本文讨论了俄罗斯和乌克兰的这种相互联系,并考虑了两国利益相关者的主要框架模式和政治机会结构。实证研究结果并没有证明基于自治和土著的要求和行动不可避免地相互加强并促进政治争论的假设。作者指出了这种互动的三个主要案例,并得出结论认为,大多数行动者都不愿促进民族自治,也不愿利用土著权利的修辞。俄罗斯政府和少数民族活动家共同边缘化了本土,事实上,在公共话语中,它与土著问题不谋而合。俄罗斯尽管有全面的法律框架,但有效地限制了土著人民的权利,并将其局限于保护自给经济。乌克兰此前不愿奉行本土政策,也不愿支持本土主张,2014年之后,乌克兰一直在利用本土议程,并将其与本土混为一谈,以对抗俄罗斯对克里米亚的控制。现有的关于土著的话语和规范框架并不一定包含和推动领土主张,而是为政府和非国家行为体提供了去政治化的空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Staging indigeneity and autochthony in Northern Eurasia
The article analyzes the interaction between autochthony, or ethnic groups’ claims of first occupancy, and the promotion of indigenous rights. The article addresses this interconnection in Russia and Ukraine and considers the stakeholders’ major modes of framing and political opportunities structure in both countries. The empirical findings do not prove the assumption that demands and actions based on autochthony and indigeneity inevitably reinforce each other and boost political contentions. The author identifies three major cases of such interactions and concludes that most actors refrain from promoting ethnic autochthony and demonstrate reluctance in exploiting the rhetoric of indigenous rights. Russian government and ethnic activists have jointly marginalized autochthony and in fact tacitly decoupled it in public discourses from indigenous issues. Russia despite its comprehensive legal framework effectively curtails indigenous rights and confines them to the protection of subsistence economy. Ukraine, previously being reluctant to pursue an indigenous policy and to support autochthonous claims, after 2014 has been using indigenous agenda and conflating it with autochthony to contest Russia’s control over Crimea. The existing discursive and normative framework of indigeneity does not necessarily entail and fuel territorial claims but rather provides governments and non-state actors with room for de-politicizing maneuvers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Geoforum
Geoforum GEOGRAPHY-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
201
期刊介绍: Geoforum is an international, inter-disciplinary journal, global in outlook, and integrative in approach. The broad focus of Geoforum is the organisation of economic, political, social and environmental systems through space and over time. Areas of study range from the analysis of the global political economy and environment, through national systems of regulation and governance, to urban and regional development, local economic and urban planning and resources management. The journal also includes a Critical Review section which features critical assessments of research in all the above areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信