The paper presented is an analysis of the variety of journalists' interpretations of the situation that has developed around the Caucasian dealers in the Russian markets. Attention was concentrated on the fact, that the recognition of the burst of “Caucasians'“ migration to “Russian” cities in the 1990-ies and the disproportionate number of “Caucasians” in the Russian markets has resulted in diametrically opposite estimations of these factors:

As the study has shown, the authors of both points of view are united by the accentuation of the nationality of the market dealers and the notion about the existence of ethnic groups, the representatives of which have “natural propensity” to trade. Their contentions correspond to the principles of Soviet multiculturalism; the ontological status of ethnicity being out of dispute. Ethnic boundaries separating dealers in the market are beyond any doubt, the dealers from the Caucasian republics are associated, as a rule, with a “different” (ethnic) culture, (quasi)ethnic groups (“Caucasians”, “Azeris” etc.); a nonexistent cultural homogeneity is ascribed in this case. However, the descriptions of the position of “Caucasians” in host (our) society, of their economic actions and motivation differ strongly. In the first case, the conflict between the principles of functioning the “civilized” market and those of the organization of work by “Caucasians” is identified. In this case, the descriptions are based on the idea that “Caucasians” use “ethnic” resources for the formation of (semi)criminal structures and the establishment of domination in trade. In the second case, “Azeris’” actions are described as normal market behaviour, when their “ethnic” skills raise the successfulness of their activity, the fruits of success being used by all participants of market interaction. In this case, the trade in itself - as an occupation – is considered to be an individual strategy, rather than a collective one.

Henceforth, I will present in detail these two forms of description, in order to show the discursive means used by the authors of the articles to inform the readers about the existence of “Caucasians” (“Azeris”) as particular groups of greenery dealers in the Russian markets.

The main metaphor organizing the discursive space, in this case, is the metaphor of “home”; the emphasizing and polarized representation (Djik, 1999) of “hosts” (“inhabitants”) and “guest” (“aliens”) encountering. “Guests” are described as “uninvited”, not adequate to the expectations of “hosts”; they try to modify the power relations, in order to command “hosts”. The maintenance of a proper order, in this case, supposes the protection of the “hosts'“ right to establish the rules of the game in their own territory and to demand the observance of these rules from “guests” (not excepting coercion).

The “host's” interpretation of an image of “newcomers from the Caucasus” suggests the definition of the latter as an alien element, whose presence does not meet the requirements of our society. Moreover, it constitutes a great menace to its existence. The menace implies predictable disequilibrium (demographic, cultural, criminal, economic etc.) in their favour.

Turning to some aspects of the polarized representation of us and them, I intend to show how the ideas about the undesirability of their presence in our society are formed and how the necessity of coercion towards them is grounded.

First, let us consider, how they are characterized:

They capture what belongs to us by right. They have usurped and “divided” our cities and markets; they lay our dealers under tribute. Because of them, the prices in the markets are higher, than could be without them. By organizing a network of subpurchasers who use uncivilized methods (i.e. various forms of extortion), they have established the dictates of prices. By forced collecting of goods, they misappropriate the profit from trade, which belongs to local producers.

- “…they cause a situation of increased criminal danger” (Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 27.10.1999). Their inclination to criminal actions is explained by the specificity of development of their ethnic culture (morals), in which both the power methods of solving problems, and negative attitude towards aliens would seem natural:

Moreover, their number converting to criminal activity is connected with the crisis in newly independent republics, where “thousands of people came to be “forced out into

criminality”. The market places are at the same time an outlet for drugs and weapon. Criminal earnings are intended for the fighting (in Chechnya) brothers (Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 27.10.1999).

- They belong to quite different, non European, cultures which are less civilized (“patriarchal” and cannot accommodate themselves to urban life. They live in clans, are traditionally dependent on their own community and are inclined to demonstrative consumption, to “show off”. Our and their notions about “what is good” differ strongly.

- They are not accustomed and do not wish to accommodate themselves to our culture, they keep to the habitual behaviour of their “ethnic native land”, ignoring its non-conformity with the new conditions. They tend to isolation, limiting their social contacts with co-ethnics (“clans”), do not show activity in search of social links, which would allow them to be integrated into our society.

Preferring to contact with marginal population or with the people of no standing, they form inadequate representation of us and our culture.

- They despise us, they exploit our weak points and introduce their own rules in our territory. They have no respect for our women, they regard them as objects of their desires. They use them as both vendors in the markets and sexual objects.

- In their sexual behaviour, they are active and aggressive. Regarding our women, they do not observe any restrictions on sexual behaviour, whereas such restrictions do exist in their “ethnic motherland”.

- They live and trade, mostly illegally, in our territory, they do not wish to obey general rules, as they consider the observation of our rules to be humiliating for them. The problems, arising as a result of their illegal status, are solved in the “traditional” way (popular in their motherland), i.e. by bribing police and officials.

The principles of “Caucasian'“ social organization allows them, in contrast to other participants of market interaction, to use non-market mechanisms of price control and force methods of influence upon competitors. In the market, “Caucasians” act as a particular corporative monopolistic group pursuing its own interests and neglecting the interests of other parties. The market comes to be a place, where “Caucasians” dominate over us. Because of their collective strategy, their power potential - as of participants of exchange (collective strategy) - considerably exceeds our (individual) opportunities for resistance. The basic concept of the representation of “guests” is a concept of real or potential threat. The peculiarities of their culture provoke the non-observance of our norms and laws by them and threaten the preservation of the order established by us.

In this situation, we play a permanent role of victims of aggression from the outside (“occupation”):

- By tradition, we are tolerant and behave correctly. We are credulous and indulgent. We apply force only in cases when we are compelled to react upon the aggression from their party and to protect our national dignity. Such an attitude is an attribute of a civilized European mentality.

- We are not racists, we acknowledge the distinctions among the “Caucasian” cultures. We live in a multinational society and respect the traditions of each of culture.

- We aim at an objective image of their presence in our territory. They impede us by forming closed communities according to an ethnic criterion, thus creating a parallel “Caucasian” world. We are compelled to use statistic data and information obtained from the “competent sources” - mainly, the representatives of law-enforcement agencies, who exercise control over them and have adequate information.

- Our negative attitude towards them is objectively substantiated, though we admit that one should constrain emotions. We condemn the people's especially aggressive demonstration of xenophobia (pogroms).

- Our resources are insufficient for solving the problems by “civilized” methods. We are compelled to infringe “human rights”, entirely because of regular infringement of our rights by them.

As one can conclude from the above, it was they who became the originators of conflicts between us and them. They do not (can not and do not want to) adhere to our (civilized) norms of life, they threaten the existence of our society. The discrimination (both institutional and daily) from ours is a feedback effect upon the “impudence” and “aggression” demonstrated by them. They become victims of their own (ethnic) norms of behaviour, which they can not and do not want to abandon.

Such a polarized image of the parties of interaction allows to use a metaphor of “war” for the description of mutual relations. This “war of liberation” in the interests of “hosts” is conducted by the representatives of law-enforcement agencies, delegated with the power to protect our “home”. On the whole, such an image of the parties of interaction legitimizes force actions. In this context, the infringement of the Russian and international laws and agreements is justified; such infringements are considered rational behaviour in certain circumstances.

A few texts deal with the above interpretation. Most of such texts are given in the form of interviews with the official representatives of so-called ethnic minorities. According to the First Vice-Prime Minister of the Government of Azerbaijan Abbas Abbasov, the current position of “Caucasians” in the Russian cities is in many respects determined by our common “Soviet” past. All of us have been integrated in the community of the “former Soviet people” and united by the “friendship of nations”. For the description of this community, a metaphor of “old friends” is used.

It is supposed that the planned economy has created prerequisites for the establishment of sustainable links between consumers in the Russian cities and agricultural producers in the republics of the former USSR (including Azerbaijan). At that time, a system of social protection of the dealers in the markets had developed. The processes which occurred in the early 90-ies resulted in the destruction of the former institution of the Soviet collective-farm market, a stable system of delivery obligations being broken. This negatively affected both producers in the republics (because of marketing difficulties) and consumers in the Russian cities (because of the deficiency of agricultural products). The high level of competition on the international agricultural market has forced producers (dealers) to return to the domestic (CIS) market, since their attempts to introduce themselves at international level were not a success. However, in new conditions, it is hardly possible to trade in one's own products, because of the problems encountered on the NIS frontiers. “Azeris” have established contacts with foreign suppliers and have organized a trade in import vegetables and fruit, which are more expensive. In prospects, they intend to change-over to their own production, which is cheaper and of higher quality. The terms of such reversion, however, depend to a considerable extent on solving a number of inter-state political and economic problems (e.g.: Russia-Azerbaijan frontier regulations).

The economic success of “Azeris” in the Russian markets in current situation is a result of competitive struggle. The victory was gained by those who came to be most business-like and thoroughly investigated the local structure, peculiarities and needs of the region.

“Caucasian” (“Azeri”) market dealers not in the least endanger the host society. Moreover, they are of real benefit to it, as they supply the local inhabitants with vegetables and fruit, provide them with jobs, render financial support to our infrastructure etc.) Their potential can be used by the authorities for the further development of the economy of the Russian regions.

They are hardly protected from racket and illegal actions (“bespredel” - lawlessness) of the representatives of law-enforcement agencies, who “at any moment can lay a person on the dirty ground, beat him for anything, or fabricate a criminal case” (Obschaya gazeta, 29.10-4.11.1998).

The author of the aforesaid quotations agrees with some factors excusing “hosts'“ strategy, i.e. mass immigration to Russian megapolices from the Caucasus and Transcaucasia; the assertion that “Azeri” control all the greenery market and the “flower business” etc. However, the author suggests that the reasons and results of these processes should be interpreted differently and described in neutral terms, positively estimating the “Azeris’” presence in the cities and emphasizing rather similarity, than distinctions.

*****

So the first of the examples adduced deals with the discriminative discourse prevailing in the official press. It suggests a “convincing” description of “facts” or opinions suggested by “competent agencies”. Such descriptions makes the reading public conclude that “guests from the South” are to blame for most difficulties. The assertion of group solidarity (“we are the owners”, we are Peterburgers”, we are Europeans” etc.) in these cases represents itself as a slogan mobilizing for the struggle against “unbidden guests”. In this case, special attention is given to the difficulties caused by the presence of a great number of immigrants to Russian cities. At that, migrants' positive influence on the life of the city is ignored, though it is supposed. The authors do not acknowledge any accusations in racism. They are well-protected from them, since in Russian discourse, a narrow definition of racism (as an ideology suggesting the biological superiority of one races over others) prevails.

As the research has shown, there are various mechanisms of discursive reproduction of ethnophobia and racism. They have nothing in common with the reactionary nationalistic movements, as well as with the concept of biological predominance. The polarized “hosts” / “guests” representation given above is one of such mechanisms used by the official (“democratic”, “independent”) Russian press. It promotes the reproduction of “cultural racism” (Dijk, 1999). Its adherents would never enter any extremist grouping, moreover, they openly declare their negative attitude towards the latter. At the same time, they white-wash ethnic (race) discrimination.

“Hosts'” discourse represents a modern version of racist ideology based on the notion about the collision between cultural-homogeneous “hosts'” and “guests'” communities in our territory. These communities have different rights in this territory.

One should remark, that the texts suggesting alternative (positive) estimations of “Caucasians'” presence in the Russian markets, very seldom appear in press. In such articles, there are no oppositions “we” - “they”, the question is about mutually advantageous cooperation between two equal partners. Unlike “host's” strategy, all that unites us is emphasized in this case. In the market, all of us enter into relations of more or less equivalent exchange. However, the alternative sense of this interpretation is seeming in many respects. All attempts to prove that “Azeris” meet the interests of the “local population” could hardly shake the “hosts'“ version of the situation. The journalist, when putting questions, uses the “hosts'“ lexicon: “Is there any danger that a great number of aliens will become one more factor of destabilization in Russia?” A respondent does not reject the very formulation of the question and answers it easily, as he has not found any discriminative sense there.

On the whole, “the representative of the Administration of Azerbaijan” holds an opinion, that people working in the market, are “homo ethnicus”. In spite of the fact that the result of the meeting of the “Azerbaijani” dealers with “local (Russian) population” is estimated positively, such point of view, however, paves the way for xenophobia.