Ethnocultural Features in the Representations of Family as a Resource of Resilience among Russian and Buryat Youth
A.V. Makhnach,N.M. Saraeva,S.B. Dagbaeva,A.I. Laktionova,A.A. Suhanov
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2024150307
2024-10-18
Social Psychology and Society
Abstract:Objective. Comparative analysis of representations about family as a resilience resource among Russian and Buryat youth (15 to 24 years old). Background. The influence of family on human resilience is mediated by cultural and ethnic contexts. A comparative analysis of the concepts of family as a resource of youth resilience, due to the families belonging to different cultures – more collectivist (Buryats) and more individualistic (Russians), will help to clarify the ethnocultural features of human resilience. Study d esign. A comparison was made of the concepts of family as a resource of resilience among Russian and Buryat respondents who support their resilience. Participants. 109 Russian and 98 Buryat university and college students. A total of 207 people. Measurements. The following were used: focus groups, a socio-demographic questionnaire, the Twenty Statements Test by M. Kuhn and T. McPartland, and the author's version of the "Unfinished Sentences" method. Based on the qualitative data from focus groups on the essence of human resilience and its components, 9 unfinished sentences were formulated and combined into 4 categories: "Resilience", "Family", "Values", and "Culture". For quantitative formalization of the qualitative data of respondents, the lexical base ( n = 3921 for Buryats, n = 4124 for Russians) was processed using the Atlas.ti program (version 9.5.6) and subjected to comparative lexicographic content analysis with an assessment of word frequency. The results are visualized as word clouds. Results . The semantic core in the "Resilience" category is different: himself, ability for Russians; person, ability for Buryats. In the core of the "Family" category – person, child – for Russians; good, beloved – for Buryats. Respondents of both groups report the high importance of family. For Russians, family members are equal, there are negative characteristics of family, while for Buryats, family relationships are usually hierarchical, there are no negative characteristics. In the core of the "Values" category for Russians: family, life; family, friends – for Buryats. In the core of the "Culture" category: the word many, tradition for Russians; important, tradition for Buryats. Interest in folk traditions was revealed in both samples. For Russians, traditions are associated with family, for Buryats with the traditions of the nation. The statements show the opposition of "I" (for Russians) and "we" (for Buryats). Conclusion . The ideas about family as a resource of resilience among Russian and Buryat youth have ethnocultural features. They are determined by the fact that the Buryats belong to a more collectivist culture and the Russians to a more individualistic culture. Russian youth perceive family as a resource of resilience, which is aimed at: strengthening their ability to cope with difficulties independently and forming an "I" identity. For Buryat youth, family as a resource of resilience strengthens their “we” identity, which contributes to the development of “We” identity. The idea of the ethnocultural context of the family as a resource of youth resilience allow us to understand how the family support for the younger generation varies.