摘要
身份认同问题是原苏联空间中的很多国家和地区在转型过程中所必须要面对的共同难题,而克里米亚长期的身份认同困境则是其中影响最为深远、也是国际影响最大的问题之一。克里米亚身份认同问题源于苏联时期,从斯大林到赫鲁晓夫,再到戈尔巴乔夫,不同时代的苏联领导人对于克里米亚采取了不同的地区政策。由于不同时期的政策思路存在明显的矛盾,使得克里米亚的身份归属出现了"错位"的现象,从而导致苏联解体之后的克里米亚陷入了身份构建的困境之中。后苏联时代的克里米亚共有三条可能的身份建构路径,分别是推动国家认同的深入,建立乌克兰身份;推动地区认同的深入,建立克里米亚的独立地区身份;以及推动民族认同的深入,回归俄罗斯身份。但在身份认同建构的实践中,由于克里米亚半岛以俄语为共同语言,在俄语的历史叙事中,乌克兰的缺位和鞑靼人的反面角色使其难以通过历史叙事的重构形成新的国家认同和统一的地区认同。同时,由于长达数百年的俄罗斯化过程,整个半岛的符号体系完全俄罗斯化,无论是地理名称、城市雕塑、政治符号抑或是文化标签,都被打上了鲜明的俄罗斯印记。在原苏联空间内复杂的族群分布状态下,乌克兰中央政府无力主导克里米亚的身份认同建构。而克里米亚人为了平衡来自基辅的外在压力和来自鞑靼人的内在压力,继续维持并强化本就在本地区占据主流地位的俄罗斯民族身份,不可避免地选择了继承苏联所赋予克里米亚的所有身份符号,并重新寻回沙俄时代的历史叙事,强化自己的俄罗斯身份。在俄罗斯身份认同不断强化的大背景下,克里米亚在20世纪90年代就产生了以民族主义为基础的分离主义运动,在1994年,整个分离主义运动达到了高潮。时任乌克兰总统库奇马凭借高超的政治手腕和有利的国际背景,在没有产生冲突的情况下瓦解了90年代的分离主义运动,但始终没有办法推动克里米亚地区形成乌克兰身份的建构。最终,在2014年3月,身份认同的困境最终成了克里米亚事件的导火索。克里米亚事件的发生也再次证明,身份认同的问题并不能完全决定国家或地区的命运,但是如果一个多民族的国家或地区长期无法摆脱身份认同的困境,那么它始终都将成为这个国家或地区未来发展道路上的潜在威胁。
The issue of identity is a common challenge for various former Soviet countries and areas in transition, of which the dilemma of Crimea＇s identity is one of the most far-reaching issue with the greatest influences internationally. The issue of Crimea＇s identity derives from the Soviet Union＇s policy. From Stalin to Khrushchev then to Gorbachev, the leaders of the Soviet Union during different eras took conflicting policies to deal with the issue of Crimea＇s identity, which led to the ＂dislocation＂ of the identity and dilemma of Crimea. During the post-Soviet period, Crimea had three possible theoretical approaches to construct its identity, namely, first to promote the national identity and construct its Ukraine identity; second to promote the regional identity in order to establish its identity as an independent area; and third to promote its national identity so as to return to its Russian identity. However, as to the practice for its identity construction, because Russian is the common language in Crimea, the Ukrainian absence and Tartar＇s opposing role makes it hard to rebuild a new national and united regional identity through Russian historical narratives. Meanwhile, due to Russification for several centuries, the entire symbolic system of the peninsula had become completely Russificated, including geographical names, city statues, cultural and political symbols have been marked with a distinctive Russian label. In the post-Soviet space with complicated national and ethnical construction, Ukrainian central government has no enough power to guide the construction of identity. In order to balance the external pressure from Kiev and the intemal pressure from Tatars, Crimeans decided to maintain and strengthen their Russian identity. They inherited the symbols Soviet Union given and discovered its historical narratives in Russian Empire to strengthen their Russian identity. In this case, in the 1990s, the nationalism and separatism movements appeared in Crimea. Especially in 1994, the separatism movements reached a climax. President Leonid Kuchma, with sophisticated political skills and favorable international environment, disintegrated the separatism movement without serious conflict. Nevertheless, he failed to promote the construction of Ukrainian identity in Crimea. Finally, the dilemma of identity became the trigger of Crimean Crisis in March 2014. The tragedy of Crimea proved again that the issues of identity can＇t completely determine the destiny of states or regions, but if one country or region can＇t get rid of the long-term dilemma of identity construction, it will always be the potential threat to its development in the future.
出处
《俄罗斯研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2014年第3期3-41,共39页
Russian Studies
关键词
身份认同
克里米亚
集体记忆
历史叙事
符号
Identity, Crimea, Collective Memory, Historical Narratives, Symbols
