Overview (Expanded Description)
This book explains in summary fashion the five main views of nationhood encountered among (especially Western, including Euroslavic) scholars (chs 1-3). It provides special focus upon the central debate between 'naturalists-perennialists' and 'western modernists'. It likewise explains the shift away from 'ethnicity' to the allegedly safer, non-political construct of 'culture' in Western modernism as part of the attempted Western solution to the problem of 'the separation of ethnicity and state'. As younger sister to the idea of 'the separation of religion and state' (whose foundations were worked out between the 17th and early 20th centuries in the West), the idea of 'the separation of ethnicity and state' has taken firm shape in the latter part of the 20th century and has become a cardinal dogma, an ethical imperative of most all Western scholarship treating the subject of ethnicity, nations and (ethno)nationalism in the post-WWII, post-Civil Rights, post-Apartheid era (i.e. since the 1950-60s). It has given rise to the now classic Western modernist insistence on the alleged distinction between 'ethnic nation' (cf. also 'cultural nation') and '(geo-)political nation'.
As the central focus of this work, a detailed critique (in chs 4-5) is offered of Western modernist writers treating the Kazakh and Central Asian nations. These writers insist on applying the cardinal Western doctrine of ´the separation of ethnicity and state´ in the Central Asian context in an effort to conform the post-Soviet Central Asian nations to Western norms of multiethnic ´democratic´ nationhood. To achieve this, they offer historiographical reinterpretations based in late 20th century Western modernist theories which themselves still echo Western eurocentric views of ´historyless, cultureless peoples´. They attribute the rise of modern ethnicity and statehood in Central Asia to Tsarist and/or Soviet policy. Modern Central Asian ethnic identities as well as the nation-states associated with them are, in their view, artificial (i.e. ´imagined´ or ´invented´) constructs, political fabrications "created" via Russian "ethno-engineering" and Russian-trained ´elite´ nationalists who inculcated in the masses an entirely ´new´ and ´modern´ idea of ethnonational identity having little or no roots in their own past. By taking this approach, they allegedly demonstrate that today´s nation-states in Central Asia have no true or historic relation to the ethnic nations whose names they bear and that those ethnic identities themselves in their current forms are ´inherently problematic´, inconsistent and highly unstable, largely divorced from their pre-colonial histories. The Central Asians are conveniently (for Western modernists) left with no rightful historical claim as ´ethnic nations´ to their own modern ´political nations´. These views continue to profoundly impact international and ethnonational human rights in the modern global age, including rights of national language, culture and history in Central Asia.
This approach, in its various forms and emphases, is encountered in Eickelman, Paksoy, Khalid, Roy, Brower, the trio of Allworth, Hambly and Sinor in Encyclopedia Britannica, the trio of King, Noble and Humphrey in Central Asia Lonely Planet, Akiner and others. It would also include Russian-Euroslavic scholars writing in English such as Slezkine, Shnirelman, Porkhomovsky, Prazauskas and others. A number of these writers explicitly seek to argue against any idea of special rights or privileges for native Central Asians and/or defend the rights of Russian-Euroslavic colonial descendents, both of whom now live together in the Central Asian nations. Other of these writers contribute to the same basic cause, whether intentionally or unintentionally, implicitly or otherwise. Their views and approach form a legacy of support for the old Russian colonial and communist policies of Russian language (and culture) as the 'common language (and culture)' among multiethnic Central Asia, not to mention 'equal' Russian political 'power-sharing', in the 'new' Central Asian states - only now they wield this support in the name of 'international human rights' in joint choral harmony with Western modernist scholars, effectively doubling the impact of international pressure upon these nations in the post-Soviet era and influencing a wide array of Western (and non-Western) readers.
In like manner, an in-depth critique (in ch 5) is given of M. B. Olcott and her historical treatment of Kazakh nationhood in her now classic work The Kazakhs. A response is then offered to her 2002 book entitled Kazakhstan: Unfulfilled Promise which politely accuses Kazakhstan based on allegations that as a 'modern nation-state' it (or at least its Kazakh constituency) is failing (among other things) to fulfill its alleged 'promise' to create a genuine multiethnic state. Her accusation is that "the Kazakh-dominated leadership" is pursuing "ethnic-based loyalty to the land of the Kazakhs" instead of "civic-based patriotism to a common homeland." In other words, in essential Leninist-Stalinist fashion still so fresh in their minds and hearts from yesterday, the Kazakhs are once again being accused as '(ethno)nationalists', only this time it comes from deep-seeded Western modernist convictions of multiethnic pluralistic democracy instead of in the name of 'the rapprochement of nations' hailed by Lenin and Stalin.
We then (in ch 6) pick up on an important theme which emerges near the end of chapter five and attempt to work further 'Towards Understanding the Dynamics of Internationalism, Pan-nationalism and Ethnonationalism in Kazakhstan and Central Asia'. Further critique of Western modernist attitudes and paradigms of 'the Central Asian conundrum' are offered amidst attempts to explain the delicate balance of these dynamics from more of a Central Asian view.
An important (though brief) comparison (in ch 7) of Kazakh with U.S. and South African national history is offered to demonstrate that the solutions for ethnicity and state worked out in those key Western historical contexts - which have given rise to the whole 'civil rights' and 'ethnic minority rights' agendas now undergirding 'international human rights' agendas as well as the related push for multiethnicity and pluralism, as the heir of the 'desegregation' policies arising from the Black Civil Rights and Anti-Apartheid movements, in 'the global age' - for the most part these do not apply and should not be applied to the Central Asian context in light of its unique and almost opposite history.
The final chapter (8) in the main discussion overviews Kazakh national history from a unified perspective of ethnonational-political identity showing that the ethnonational aspirations of the Kazakhs, including its political dimensions, remain strong throughout all stages and eras of their history. It reveals that the Kazakh 'ethnic nation' and 'political nation' have always 'naturally' gone hand-in-hand - before, during and after 'the coming of the Russians'. This means that Kazakh language, culture, history and statehood have been and still have the right to be woven together in the Kazakh nation, i.e. Kazakhstan - yesterday, today and tomorrow.
The author offers a perspective on Central Asian ethnonational identity which affirms its ´complex unity´ and depth of historical rootedness, recognizing the long-standing intimate connection between the ethnosocial, ethnocultural, ethnolinguistic, ethnoreligious and ethnopolitical dimensions of nationhood in the Central Asian tradition. From this unique, non-Western historical and contextual base, a more indigenous, integral form of ´Central Asian democratic nationhood´ is sought which strives to achieve genuine justice and equality for all ethnonational peoples involved. The author´s experience and insight is founded upon eight years of living and working in Kazakhstan, including a Ph.D. in cultural theory and history from Kazakh National University working entirely in Kazakh under the direction of Kazakh scholars. He draws significantly upon this base of Kazakh scholarship as a central part of the ´challenge to prevailing Western views´ regarding Central Asian nationhood.
