PREFACE
With the weather still warm in early September (2005), I was enjoying my usual walk to work up Aimanov Street in Almaty. I was feeling somewhat good about having finished the main text of this book and was thinking of the details remaining before getting it off to the publisher. As I passed by one of the newspaper kiosks along the way, I decided to have a look, as I often do, at the various headlines. The phrase 'The Ethnonational Idea' (lit. 'Ulttik ideya') - a common household phrase heard often in scholarly and political discussions as well as the media - caught my eye in large bold print in the center of one particular front page. Then, as my eyes scanned across the rest of the page, up in the lefthand corner was another article title, the catch-phrase sense of which can be rendered: 'There Before, and Still There Later too' (lit. 'Burin da bolgan, keiin de bola beredi'). It turned out to be a brief article on the historical depth of Kazakh nationhood, particularly in its political dimensions (i.e. 'statehood'). Upon turning to the page with the article, the opening paragraph was highlighted, reading:
- In recent times some political figures are going about determined to commence the [Kazakh] nation's history from their own birthdays. If you sit and listen to their words, these Kazakhs have had neither state, nor borders, nor [political] authority until this [beginning of the nation's history on their birthdays]. Oh my, from where then did these Kazakhs emerge?
Whoever exactly the writer may have in view here and whatever his own purpose(s) in writing about them, these are not of concern to us. We do not quote his comments to support whatever agenda he or the newspaper itself may have in mind. Our concern is with the view attributed to certain Kazakhs - whether accurately or inaccurately, whether political figures or otherwise - who are said to "commence the nation's history from" some time very late, namely the 20th century, and that, in the minds of such Kazakhs, there were "neither state, nor borders, nor [political] authority" before this time.
To be carefully noted here is the intimate relation between the beginning of 'nationhood' and the idea of 'state' and 'borders' and 'political authority'. Of course, 'nations' are commonly called 'states', i.e. the two terms get used interchangeably as synonyms on a regular basis. Thus, for example, the political 'states' of the world attempt to work together in an organization which is called 'The United Nations'. But more than that, we even find the two terms combined into the one compound term 'nation-state' which is then even compounded further with the adjective 'political' which itself becomes still further modified with the prefix 'geo'. Ultimately we wind up with phrases like 'geo-political nation', which could be repeated in connection with state and/or nation-state. Whatever precise term is used, the emphasis of usage for the term 'nation' in these cases is upon 'political nationhood'. 'Political nations' of course have to deal with issues of territory (i.e. 'land') and language, not to mention culture, economy, history and other things.
Yet 'nation' is also used in reference to 'ethnic group'. Indeed, the term 'nation' (or plural 'nations') has been commonly used to translate the Greek term 'ethnos' (or plural 'ethne') which lies behind our concept and study of 'ethnicity' via 'ethnography', 'ethnology' and the like. And so we speak of 'ethnic nations'. Of course, 'ethnic nations' and their 'ethnicity' are inseparably tied to 'culture' - 'ethnic culture' to be specific. Therefore, we also speak of 'cultural nations'. And these 'ethnic nations' or 'cultural nations' involve issues of land, language and other matters of 'ethnic cultural being and identity'. Land and language as well as history, culture, society, economy and politics all become uniquely and intimately related to the 'ethnic' or 'cultural nation'.
And so the question arises: What do 'ethnic nation' and 'political nation' have to do with one another? Are they one and the same thing? Are they two entirely distinct and separate things? What is their proper relationship with one another? When we speak of 'national language', 'national culture', 'national territory', 'national government' and the like are we talking about 'ethnic nations', 'nation-nations' or 'nation-states'? Consider 'the nation of Kazakhstan' for example. The term 'stan' means essentially 'land' or 'nation' (cf. also 'country'). When speaking of 'Kazakhstan' then, are we talking about 'the Kazakh nation' or perhaps 'the land of the Kazakhs'? It would seem so, otherwise why have the ethnonym of the 'ethnic nation' lying at the heart of the name of the 'political nation'? It would seem just from the name itself that the modern 'political nation' of 'Kazakhstan' is somehow uniquely and intimately tied to, not 'the Russian nation' or 'the Ukrainian nation' or 'the German nation', but 'the Kazakh nation', i.e. the 'ethnic nation' known as 'Kazakh'. And if that is the case then it would seem quite normal and appropriate that the 'national language' of the 'political nation' would and even should be the same as the 'national language' of the 'ethnic nation', in this case namely 'Kazakh'. The same could be said for the (primary) 'national culture'. And it would seem that the political authority to make this decision for the 'nation' would rest, first and foremost, with the Kazakhs in their own historic homeland which bears their own ethnic name.
Yet, as just alluded to, the 'political nation' of 'Kazakhstan' has become home to more than one 'ethnic nation'. That is, it is home to more than just 'the Kazakh nation', it has also become home to large numbers of people from 'the Russian nation', 'the Ukrainian nation', 'the German nation', 'the Uzbek nation', 'the Uighur nation' and so on. This means 'Kazakhstan' is in reality a 'multiethnic nation'. Is it fair then that the 'political nation' should bear the name of only one of the 'ethnic nations' which call it 'home'? Likewise, is it fair that the 'national language' and 'national culture' of only one 'ethnic nation' living in that 'political nation' should have the right to be named and used as the 'national language' and/or 'national culture' of that 'political nation'?
These questions are more than merely academic. They remain burning but still unresolved questions of the hour for Central Asia, a rather lo-o-o-o-o-ng hour which has stretched from at least 1991, when Russian imperialism in Central Asia finally came to end and the Central Asian peoples became free to pursue independent nationhood. Or did they? The foreign political, cultural and even linguistic not to mention economic forces which once held them in bondage still seem to be operating at slightly reduced but nonetheless significant levels. They have only been re-channeled and now been joined by, as well as themselves joined in with, new 'international' political, cultural and linguistic not to mention economic forces which all seem to have their will, standards, values and ideals which they want the Central Asian peoples to follow, indeed which they even insist they must follow or be in 'violation' of human rights and ethics. The resolution of these questions, therefore, involves further questions of not only philosophical ideology regarding 'nationhood', but international human rights and ethics. And these questions involve still further questions of history, or more accurately, to borrow the subtitle of Anthony D. Smith's important 2001 work, 'historiographical debates over ethnicity and nationalism'. Indeed, together with defining and relating 'ethnic nation' and 'political nation', the entire question of history and its proper understanding and interpretation looms large in the whole debate, as can be seen in the quote from the article noted above.
For those who are not aware that there even has been or remains such a debate, now is the time to 'arise, shine' and be educated about it. With respect to those who "commence the nation's history from" some time in the 20th century and believe that there were "neither state, nor borders, nor [political] authority" before this time, the same article asks "from where ...did these Kazakhs emerge?" Indeed, as we shall see, it is not only Kazakhs - albeit certainly a minority of them - who hold this view, but there are a far greater majority of Western, including Euroslavic, scholars who hold it. Not only do they 'hold it' though, they actively, even aggressively at times, promote it to the point that the Kazakh and Central Asian peoples and nations are bombarded from nearly every side with theories that insist that both their 'ethnic nationhood' and their 'political nationhood' are 'imagined' or 'invented' constructs of the Russians which have no real connection with their former historic identities. Thus, they are left with no grounds for establishing 'political nationhood' on 'ethnic nationhood' in the modern global age. Indeed, they are accused of an 'unfulfilled promise' for not conforming to the standards, ideals and values of 'nationhood' defined for and assigned to them by these foreign scholars. Meanwhile, the majority of native Kazakh and Central Asian peoples hold a very different view, one which sees their ethnic as well as political identity going back into history well beyond the coming of the Russians and continuing, amidst the many changing circumstances of the times, up until the modern day when rights for (reasonable, adjusted) restoration of that nationhood should be granted to them in the wake of new found freedom.
It is towards understanding much more thoroughly and accurately both those views, along with others involved in the 'clash of paradigms' over ethnicity and nationhood in the modern global age, which this book hopes to move. From there, one can only hope and pray that genuinely ethical and practical solutions can be found for the ethnic as well as political 'nations' involved, including the Kazakh and Central Asian 'nations'. With a view to genuine 'liberty and justice for all' based on respectful and integral treatment of ethnonational history and identity in Central Asia and, likewise, with an earnest interest in avoiding the repetition of historical injustices while seeking reasonable resolution of and recompense for them, this book aims at Rethinking Kazakh and Central Asian Nationhood.
