Likhanova T.Yu. “Five Identification Profiles of National-state Self-determination in Modern Russia: The Experience of Sociological Research.” Sociopolitical Sciences. Vol. 16 no. 3 (2026): 49–68. DOI: 10.33693 ...

Abstract

Based on the data of the 55th stage of the All-Russian sociological monitoring «How are you, Russia?» (ISPR FCTAS RAS, N=1300, 2025), the identification profiles of the national-state self-determination of Russians are analyzed. Using the method of factor analysis, three hierarchical dimensions of identity were identified: ethno-confessional and regional (17.5% of the variance), Russian civil and cultural (14.8%) and global (14.8%). Ethnic identity demonstrates a cross-load, acting as a resource of both local rootedness and civil solidarity. Cluster analysis (k-means) identified five identification profiles: «Alienated» (9.5%), «Cosmopolitans» (11.3%), «Traditional Statesmen» (37.2%), «Open Statesmen» (20.5%) and «Autonomous Citizens» (21.5%). The article presents socio-demographic portraits of the selected clusters, their value priorities (consensus values and value splits), as well as the differentiation of patriotic attitudes of the clusters. The political attitudes of the clusters are polarized: «Traditional statesmen» (37.2%) demonstrate maximum loyalty to the system and an optimistic image of the future (the expansion of Russia), while «Cosmopolitans» (11.3%) are characterized by a critical attitude towards power, a preference for Western economic models and more pessimistic forecasts (the assumption of the disintegration of the country). The cluster of «Alienated» (9.5%) and «Autonomous citizens» (21.5%) is more characterized by identification uncertainty and an increased proportion of those who find it difficult to answer about the future of Russia. It was revealed that the structure of institutional trust is similar among different groups, but its level differs: the maximum among «Open statesmen» (43.4%), the minimum among «Cosmopolitans» (24.4%). The «vertical» nature of institutional trust is revealed, in which the level of trust in government increases as its level increases (from local government to regional and federal authorities). It is concluded that there are multiple models of self—determination: at one pole there are clusters that act as pillars of the system («Traditional statesmen» and «Open Statesmen», 57.7% together), on the other there are groups with an identification vacuum («Alienated») and formal loyalty («Autonomous Citizens»), which make up almost a third of the population.