Abstract
<jats:p>Thie article examines the influence of L.M. Drobizheva’s legacy on the modern discussions about the essence of ethnicity. The complex nature of this phenomenon, its variability and dynamic nature, as well as its inherent connection to social context determine the epistemological difficulties of conceptualizing ethnicity. On the one hand, the most authoritative, classical rationality adheres to substantial optics. On the other hand, interdisciplinary practices that claim to transcend disciplinary boundaries are becoming increasingly relevant. This gives rise to serious problems in the consideration of objects of complex synthetic nature, in the particularities of procedural processes, which entail the temptation of reductionism. The disciplinary landscape of ethnosociology is outlined as a space of competition between proponents and opponents of the “anthropological turn.” While the former aim to reduce ethnicity to identity, the latter seek foundations that synthesize the most effective scientific approaches for studying ethnic phenomena. The significance of L.M. Drobizheva’s ideas and the contributions of her mentors and followers to the search for such foundations have been revealed. In collaboration with Yuri Arutyunyan, she proposed a multi-paradigmatic methodology for the systemic study of ethnicity, which integrates structural and phenomenological perspectives. This methodology formed the basis for studying the ethnosocial situation in post-Soviet Russia. Leokadia M. Drobizheva’s commitment to classical scientific rationality in substantiating the complementarity of ethnic and civic identities is emphasized. The study of the social interior in the context of which ethnicity is reproduced remains an urgent task that cannot be solved without an analysis of the objective, network and institutional factors of its reproduction. Developing the ideas of the Novosibirsk academic ethnosociological school on ethnosocial processes as a subject of ethnosociology, we propose to consider ethnosocial dynamics in the unity of two foundations of social structuring: first, as a form of cultural distinction based on the network self-organization of society and secondly, as a status position included in the space of social stratification. From this perspective, ethnicity appears to be the result of social forces that influence human activity and behavior through the choices they make.</jats:p>