In ethnography, the term “sub-ethnos” (“sub-ethnic group”) is applied to groups of the Jewish people—both “historical” and relatively new—that are distinguished by their stable cultural and linguistic specificity. It appears that Russian-speaking Jews constitute one of these new sub-ethnic groups. They possess a distinct sub-ethnic self-consciousness without losing their Jewish ethnic self-consciousness. They also have their own, already well-established complex of cultural characteristics. The center of this sub-ethnic group is currently not Russia, but Israel, and this applies not only to those Russian-speaking Jews residing in Israel itself, but also to those living in the Diaspora. A significant role in this is played not only by national-religious ideology as such, but also by Russian-language Jewish social networks and media.

Scientific debates are frequently debates about terminology. Different researchers may interpret the same term in different ways. Therefore, I must emphasize from the outset that, as a graduate of the Department of Ethnography of the Faculty of History at Moscow State University, I use the term “sub-ethnos” (“sub-ethnic group”) in the sense attributed to it by the Soviet ethnographic school. The understanding of the term “sub-ethnos” adopted in Soviet ethnography was based on the concept formulated in the works of Lev Gumilev (1912-1992), who argued that “a sub-ethnos is an ethnic system that stands out within an ethnos due to its stereotype of behavior and contrasts itself with its surroundings based on the mutual complimentarity of its constituent members. A sub-ethnos ≈ an ethnic taxon of a lower rank than an ethnos. (...) Through non-antagonistic rivalry, sub-ethnoses make the internal structure of the ethnos highly flexible without disrupting its unity. In the process of ethnogenesis sub-ethnoses emerge and dissolve (more or less painlessly), being replaced by others”[1].

By virtue of his unique biography, Lev Gumilev was undoubtedly an outsider in Soviet ethnography. However, the definition of the term “sub-ethnos” that he formulated was effectively reiterated by Academician Yulian Bromley (1921-1990), who served as Director of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences from 1966 and was considered the “luminary of Soviet ethnography.” He did so, in particular, in his work “Essays on the Theory of Ethnos”[2]. At the same time, Soviet ethnographic science denied the existence of Jews as a single people. For example, according to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Jews are “a common ethnic name (in Russian) for peoples historically tracing their origins to the ancient Hebrews.” Ashkenazi, Bukharian, and Georgian Jews were considered distinct “peoples.” Regarding Mountain Jews (whom the late Soviet establishment preferred to call “Tats”) and Krymchaks, the official Soviet ethnography of the period when I was a student and young scientist attempted to deny even that they “historically trace their origins to the ancient Hebrews.” Consequently, the term “sub-ethnos” (“sub-ethnic group”) was not applied in official Soviet ethnography to Soviet Jews, nor to Jews living outside the USSR.

In general terms, the theory of Jewish sub-ethnoses was developed by the prominent Jewish linguist Max Weinreich (though he did not use this exact term) in his classic work “History of the Yiddish Language”[3]. Heavily influenced by Max Weinreich's work, in my early publications I used or implied the term “sub-ethnos” (“sub-ethnic group”), known to me from Soviet ethnographic theory, in reference to groups of the Jewish people distinguished by their stable cultural and linguistic specificity[4]. The same terminology was utilized by other members of the Jewish Historical and Ethnographic Commission, established by a group of ethnographers and activist historians of the informal Jewish movement in 1981[5]. I outlined my vision of the structure of the sub-ethnic groups that collectively constitute the Jewish ethnos in detail in an article written during the Soviet period and initially published in samizdat, entitled “Elements of the Linguistic Situation in Ethno-Dispersed Groups: The Case of Jewish Sub-Ethnic Groups”[6].

Following my repatriation to Israel, I had the opportunity to observe that the school of “social anthropology” here differs significantly from the Soviet ethnographic school. In the context of the topic under discussion, it is important to note that the Hebrew term “eda” is excessively vague. In Israeli sociology, it is frequently used in a critical context when addressing inter-communal discrimination[7]. Even when referring neutrally to the collective “edot Yisrael” (literally, the “communities of Israel”) in the sense of their distinct cultural and linguistic heritage, the term remains ambiguous. It can denote well-established groups with their own spoken language, folklore, etc. (“Gruzinim”, “Kuchinim”, “Kurdim”, etc.), as well as highly amorphous collectives of immigrants from a given state, which are relatively new in the context of ethnic processes (“Romanim”, “Bulgarim”, “Anglosaxim”, etc.), or even religious-ideological movements (“Ha-Eda Ha-Haredit”, i.e., the ultra-Orthodox religious community).

The term “Ethnoreligious group” encountered in English-language literature on social anthropology is also essentially inapplicable to the consolidated cultural-linguistic groups that collectively form the Jewish people. It designates either an ethnic group for which religion is a key identifier, or a confessional group that has acquired ethnic characteristics[8]. This term is more appropriate for defining the Jewish people as a whole, given that Judaism serves as the primary ethnic symbol for Jews.

Based on the above, I consider the use of the term “sub-ethnos” (“sub-ethnic group”), which I adopted during the Soviet era, to be permissible and indeed necessary, at least in Russian-language publications (and in principle in other languages as well), even now, more than three decades after my repatriation from the USSR.

How do Russian-speaking Jews correlate with the concept of a “sub-ethnos” (“sub-ethnic group”)? Before addressing this question, I find it necessary to state that the sub-ethnic groups of the Jewish people that existed at the beginning of the twentieth century have now undergone extensive erosion. Almost all specifically Jewish languages of the Diaspora have either already vanished or are under threat of extinction. Even Yiddish, the traditional language of Ashkenazi Jews—for which it is premature to speak of extinction—is no longer the native language of the vast majority of people originating from this sub-ethnic group, which has been the largest among the Jewish people in modern and contemporary history. The traditional way of life of the old Jewish sub-ethnic groups has ceased to exist. A century later, most of their representatives no longer reside where their ancestors lived for generations. The remaining elements of traditional sub-ethnic culture are increasingly becoming relics, a substrate upon which new Jewish sub-ethnic groups are emerging before our very eyes[9]. This situation aligns fully with Lev Gumilev’s definition cited above, according to which “in the process of ethnogenesis sub-ethnoses emerge and dissolve (more or less painlessly), being replaced by others.”

It appears that Russian-speaking Jews represent one of these new sub-ethnic groups of the Jewish people. They possess a distinct sub-ethnic self-consciousness without losing their Jewish ethnic self-consciousness. They also have their own, already well-established complex of cultural characteristics[10]. In Israel, the informal exonym “Rusim” has already taken root in reference to this new sub-ethnic group, and is often used as an endonym in Hebrew communication.

In conclusion, it is necessary to emphasize that the center of the sub-ethnic group of Russian-speaking Jews is currently by no means Russia, but Israel. This applies not only to those Russian-speaking Jews residing in Israel itself, but also to those living in the Diaspora. A significant role in this is played not only by national-religious ideology as such, but also by Russian-language Jewish social networks and media[11]. Returning to Lev Gumilev’s theory of ethnos, it is appropriate to introduce another brief quotation from the dictionary of its concepts and terms cited above: “Within an ethnos, as a rule, a sub-ethnos emerges that plays a leading role.” The sub-ethnos playing the leading role in the modern Jewish ethnos is the Hebrew-speaking sub-ethnos of Israeli Jews, in the formation of which representatives of all old and new sub-ethnic groups of the Jewish people, including Russian-speaking Jews, have participated and continue to participate.

[1] See “Dictionary of Concepts and Terms of the History of Ethnogenesis by L.N. Gumilev”: L. N. Gumilev, Ethnosphere: The History of People and the History of Nature. – Moscow: “Ekopros”, 1993, pp. 493-542.

[2] Yu. V. Bromley, Essays on the Theory of Ethnos, Moscow, 1983, pp. 83-87.

[3] Max Weinreich, Geshikhte fun der yiddisher sprakh (in 4 volumes), New York, 1973; English translation: History of the Yiddish Language (2 volumes), Yale University Press, New Haven, 2008.

[4] “Tsi neytikn zikh hipotezes in a visnshaftlekher argumentatsie. Vegn M.Matatovs artikl ‘Tsu der frage vegn dem tatishn etnos'” (“Do Hypotheses Require Scientific Argumentation? On M. Matatov's Article ‘On the Question of the Tat Ethnos'” – in Yiddish), Sovetish heymland, 1982, N 10, pp. 51-63; “On the Origin of the Ethnonym ‘Krymchak’ and the Concept of the ‘Krymchak Language’”, Geography and Culture of Ethnographic Groups of Tatars in the USSR, Moscow, 1983, pp. 94 – 104; “Ethnocultural Evolution of Balkan Sephardim in the 16th-19th Centuries (The Case of Balkan Sephardim)”, Ethnic Culture: Dynamics of Basic Elements, Moscow, 1984, pp. 81– 96.

[5] On the Jewish Historical and Ethnographic Commission, see: Igor Krupnik, “How We Studied History... and Ethnography: To the 35th Anniversary of the Jewish Historical and Ethnographic Commission, 1981-1990,” (ed. M.S. Kupovetsky) Soviet Jewish Studies: History, Methodology, Personalities, Jerusalem – Moscow: “Gesharim”, 2017. – pp. 286-360.

[6] Bulletin of the Jewish University, N 2 (6), Moscow, 1994, pp. 59 – 67.

[7] See, for example: Yehuda Shenhav, “Etniyut”, (ed. Uri Ram and Niza Berkovich) I/shivyon (“In/equality” – in Hebrew), Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, 2006, pp. 55-63.

[8] For more details on the definition of the term “Ethnoreligious group”, see, for example: David M. Barry, “The Relationship between Religion and Ethnicity: A Review of the Literature”, Popular Perceptions of the Relationship Between Religious and Ethnic Identities: A Comparative Study of Ethnology in Contemporary Russia and Beyond, Western Michigan University, 2012, pp. 6–19.

[9] For more details, see: Velvl Chernin, “The Boundaries of the Jewish National Collective: East European and Eurasian Contexts”, Jews of Europe and Asia: EAJC Yearbook, 2018-2019/5779. – Herzliya, 2019. – pp. 29-39.

One of the most prominent manifestations of the cultural specificity of Russian-speaking Jews is Russian-Jewish literature. For more details, see: Velvl Chernin, “Russian-Jewish Literature in Israel and the Diaspora”, EAJC Yearbook 2019-2020, pp. 221-246.

[11] Vladimir (Ze'ev) Khanin, Velvl Chernin, Jewish Identity in the Former USSR: Parameters, Models, and Challenges. Tel Aviv and Herzliya: Institute for Euro-Asian Jewish Studies and the Goldstein-Goren Diaspora Research Center at Tel Aviv University, March 2020. – pp. 98 – 104