Nationalism and Identity Construction in Central Asia: Dimensions, Dynamics, and Directions

194 Pages·2014·1.838 MB·English

by  Mariya Y. Omelicheva (editor)

Nationalism and Identity
Construction in Central Asia
Nationalism and Identity
Construction in Central Asia
Dimensions, Dynamics, and Directions
Edited by
Mariya Y. Omelicheva
LEXINGTON BOOKS
Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

Published by Lexington Books
An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706
www.rowman.com
Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB
Copyright © 2015 by Lexington Books
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means,
including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a
reviewer who may quote passages in a review.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Available
ISBN 978-0-7391-8134-8 (cloth : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-0-7391-8135-5 (electronic)
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for
Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.
Printed in the United States of America
Introduction
Mariya Y. Omelicheva
Nations, nationalisms, and identities continue to play key roles in the quest for
both individual and collective belonging. Ubiquitous and timeless, they structure
individuals’ global outlooks determining their future relationships—cooperative or
hostile—with other people, and inspirit them in ways comparable only to the pull of
religion. In the twentieth century, a multitude of global forces have further affected the
issues of national identity and nationalisms. The movements of people, capital, ideas,
and knowledge have altered the conditions under which communities and identities
are forged in the modern era.
The interest in the topics of nations, nationalisms, and identity construction
resurfaced following the end of the Cold War that precipitated an epidemic of
nationalist conflict around the globe and brought about into existence new nations and
states. Since 1990, twenty-nine new “nation-states” have come into being with most
of these entities emerging from the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(U.S.S.R.). Influenced by the modern trends of nation building, but also evincing
distinctive practices of constructing new identities, these newly independent countries
provided researchers with “national laboratories” for developing and testing
competing explanations for the emergence and impact of nationalisms. National
identities became a primary and popular explanation for a wide range of political,
economic, social, and cultural processes, including the issues of governance,
development, security, and peace and conflict.
Central Asia, a region of diverse topography, religious practices, and culture with
an intricate makeup of multi-layered and mixed identities, exemplifies some of the
common patterns of national identity construction but also unique manifestations of
nationalisms and their impacts on national and regional stability, conflict, regimes, and
foreign policy, among other themes.[1] The five Central Asian republics—Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—appeared in the early Soviet
period. Yet, the Soviet experiences that gave birth to these nations also stifled many
expressions of their national sentiment and, therefore, are rejected today as the
building blocks of the new Central Asian identities by the modern nationalists. Neither
can these countries recourse to the histories preceding Russian colonization because
political entities and allegiances that existed during that period do not fit with the
ethno-national legitimacy these republics are manufacturing today. As a result, the
national identities that are being built in Central Asia are somewhat timeless, lacking
ethno-territorial anchors and historical reference points other than myths of origin
taken from the Soviet historiography.[2]
How can new nations arise without being brought into being by nationalisms, as
exemplified by the republics of Central Asia? Why did nationalisms become the key
mechanisms of political process in these states? What kinds of nationalisms unfold in
Central Asia, and what determines the nature and dynamics of national identity
construction in these states? The volume on Nationalisms and Identity Construction
in Central Asia addresses these important questions as Central Asian states continue
to reexamine and debate who and what they represent more than twenty years in the
wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The goals of this introductory chapter are
three-fold. First, it places the studies of nationalism and identity construction in
Central Asia in the context of the broader scholarship on nationalism and national
identity and the core debates, which permeate the study of nations and nationalism.
This is done to highlight new experiences and challenges facing the post-colonial
societies, including those in Central Asia.
The second goal of the introduction is to put forth a framework that allows for an
open-ended and interdisciplinary exploration of nationalisms and identity construction.
In the past, it was common to describe the post-1989 political developments in the
former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe using the concept of “matryoshka”
nationalism, from the Russian stackable dolls of decreasing size placed one inside the
other. However, a different metaphor, that of a jigsaw puzzle or a game of LEGO, is
more appropriate in the present-day Central Asia. It underscores the existence of an
array of pieces and building blocks for nationalisms and identity formation in the
region that can be assembled and interlocked in many different ways. To simplify this
complexity and make it amenable to a systematic examination, we developed a three-
pronged framework, branded as a “3D” perspective after the first letters of
Dimensions, Dynamics, and Directions, that we apply in this volume. The first part of
the framework—dimensions—underscores the new and complex ways in which
nationalisms and identities manifest themselves in Central Asia. The second part—
dynamics—is premised on the idea that nationalisms and identity construction in the
Central Asian states may indicate some empirical continuities with the past, but are
more concerned with legitimations of the present power politics and relations in these
states. It calls for the identification of the main actors, strategies, tactics, interests,
and reactions to the processes of nationalism and identity construction. The third part
of the framework—directions—addresses implications of nationalisms and identity
construction in Central Asia. Finally, the introduction provides an overview of the
volume highlighting its common themes and questions.
CENTRAL ASIAN NATION BUILDING IN THE CONTEXT
OF SCHOLARSHIP ON NATIONALISM
The studies of nationalisms and related subjects have multiplied exponentially in
recent years. Although, the field still lacks consensus over the fundamental concepts
of nations, ethnicities, and nationalisms, many of the early conceptual debates have
seen significant advances. An array of usages of the term “nationalism” has
converged on a few common uses that were cogently described by the pioneer of
nationalism studies, Anthony D. Smith, in a recent review.[3] The concept of
nationalism is often used to denote the process of creating a nation or nation-state. It
can also refer to a sentiment or consciousness of belonging to the nation. Nationalism
can take on a meaning of a doctrine or ideology for realizing national goals or political
movement acting on behalf of the nation, and its language and symbolism.[4] The
concepts of politics, sentiments, and ideas run as a common thread through the
common uses of the term “nationalism.” They are also emblematic of virtually all
forms of nationalism in practice.[5]
The extant theoretical debates over the concept of nationalism and the kindred
idea of the nation have given rise to a wider range of questions about the relationship
between nations and nationalisms (Is nationalism a source or a consequence of the
nation?), relation of ethnicity to nation (Is ethnie an elemental building block of the
nation?), and objective and subjective underpinnings of nationalism (Are language,
religion, territory, and other “objective” factors more important than the perceptions of
belongingness and strength of feelings of the unity of people?). While the precise
etymology of the great conceptual debates falls outside of the purview of this volume,
[6] a brief overview of the main perspectives on the raised questions warrants
inclusion insofar as these approaches also inform the studies of nationalism and
identity construction in Central Asia.
Many existing explanations for the rise of nations and nationalisms fall into one of
the two distinct paradigms, namely, primoridalism and modernism. The former group
of scholars is united around their belief in the antiquity and ubiquity of nations:
although individual nations appear and disappear in history, the nation as a concept
and historical and social community is presumed to be eternal.[7] Modernists, on the
other hand, view nations as a modern phenomenon brought into existence by
modernization that swept Europe during the Enlightenment epoch.[8] Rapid
urbanization, increased social mobility, the emergence of industrial society,[9] and the
advent of print media and social communications contributed to the rise of
nationalisms and nations.[10] Ethnic and cultural roots are less important for this
perspective than cultural symbols used in the construction of the nation through the
work of innovative individuals and elites.
For modernists and others who subscribe to constructivist and instrumentalist
views premised on the idea of nations as products of modernity, nationalism (as
movement and ideology) serves as a conduit for the creation of nations and
represents a modern aspiration of masses rather than an ancient longing. Conversely,
those who regard nations as neither recent nor novel, but rather as phenomena that
reflect continuity and recurrence across the time, the rise of a nationalism depends on
the prior existence of a corresponding nation. In other words, for the adherents of
primordialist thinking nationalism is a consequence, rather than a source and
instrument of nations.
Certainly, there has been a range of critiques applied to these dominant
perspectives,[11] while some of the post-modern approaches portend the attenuation,
if not complete irrelevance, of nation-states in the increasingly globalized world. There
are also many perspectives on nations that represent a structural synthesis of the
objective (“real”) and subjective (spiritual, cultural) components of nationalism. As
Reuel Hanks observes in his chapter, ethno-symbolism, in particular, represents a
compromise between primordialist and modernist perspectives on identity formation
as it emphasizes the significance of symbols, traditions, values, and myths that go
into the making and preservation of nations, while recognizing that national identity is
shaped by the political and economic forces in which it develops. Ethno-symbolists
call for the greater appreciation of the rootedness of modern nations in the past
memories and ethnic histories that give modern nationalism its power. Ethno-
nationalists, therefore, criticize modernists for ignoring la longue durée,[12] but they
also reject the primordialists’ trap of implying that nations are an inevitable part of the
“natural order.” For Anthony Smith and his fellow ethno-symbolists, nations are
“dynamic purposive communities of actions” which, once created, have lives of their
own and real consequences for people inhabiting them.[13]
Conceptual debates within the field of nationalist studies persist not only across
different approaches and paradigms, but also within them. Modernists and
constructivists are, for example, divided over the question of determinants of the
future of nations: why do some nations fail while others endure? For the proponents
of ethno-symbolism, the strength of modern nations derives from the sinew of pre-
existing ethnie, a pre-national ethno-cultural group constituting the “fulcrum” of state
and community.[14] Others have pointed out some empirically functioning solidarity
groups based on alternative bases of unity and common aspirations. Territorial and
kinship forms of identification, for example, have been recognized as functional
equivalents to ethnic ones in producing national identity, national sentiment, and
identification through the everyday experiences of close interactions and acts of
reciprocity that cultivate “a sense of cultural intimacy” and develop “the bonds of
mutual commitment and trust.”[15]
Related to the sources of nations is the question about the elements, or
“materials,” that go into the formation and preservation of national identity. While
many scholars consider national identity to be fundamentally multi-dimensional, there
is no consensus over the nature and relative importance of the various facets of
national identity. Some stress “objective” and material elements, such as language,
religion, historic territory, race, and material resources that give some national
communities and movements a greater role and more political clout in the nation
building process. Others ascribe greater importance to “subjective” factors, such as
the “perception which group members themselves have of national category to which
they belong and also strength of feeling which they evince in support of their unique
identity.”[16] Ethno-symbolism examines a sense of identity in terms of constitutive
symbolic resources—traditions, memories, values, myths, and symbols that compose
the accumulated heritage of cultural units of population and determine the durability of
ethnic groups.[17] Other perspectives that share the ethno-symbolists’ emphasis on
creativity in conjuring nations into existence from the amalgamation of symbols and
myths argue that nations may thrive on the sagas of the future, not only the myths of
their origin and descent. Furthermore, the everyday experiences of various solidarity
networks can also serve as raw materials upon which abstract nationalist ideologies
may be built.[18] What unites the studies assembled in this volume is their shared
modern and post-modern understanding of nations, nationalisms, and identities as
discursive, strategic, and tactical formations. They are viewed as “constructed” and
“imagined,” and, therefore, continuously changing, but also fragmented, and
contested. In the creation of nations, what matters more is the ability of nationalism
as a national movement and ideology to channel individuals’ personal sentiments and
commitments into the abstract and imagined community that is called the nation.[19]
NATIONS AND NATIONALISM IN
HISTORY OF CENTRAL ASIA
Throughout most of its history, Central Asia defied the expectations of the dominant
paradigms on nations. In the twentieth century, Central Asian experiences with nation
building offered one of the most striking examples of how a nation can arise without
being brought into being by nationalism and in the absence of pre-national ethnic
solidarity groups with clear self-consciousness and self-identification. The ethno-
symbolist understandings of an ethnic group as a cohesive entity bound together by
language, territory, and myths of shared descent also did not apply to the inhabitants
of the region.[20]
Prior to Islamization, Transoxiana, the region spanning the basins of the Amu
Darya and Sur Darya rivers roughly corresponding to the present-day Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan, southern Kyrgyzstan, and southwest Kazakhstan, resembled a rich and
complex mosaic of sedentary and nomadic peoples, languages, cultures, and
indigenous religious traditions. The Arab Islamization that began in the seventh
century and lasted through the first part of the second millennium attenuated the
strong differences between nomadic Turkic tribes and sedentary Indo-Europeans.
However, it did not result in the homogenization of the people around common
language, territory, or Islam. The shifting movements of the itinerant Turkic tribes
continued to defy the logic of territorial, linguistic, and demographic community.[21]
The same fortune awaited Mongols who controlled Transoxiana in thirteenth to
fifteenth centuries. Although, the Mongol occupation resulted in the spread of Turkic
languages and Islam among the conquered tribes, it also furthered the intermixing of
populations and kept division between the predominantly agricultural and pastoral
economic systems intact. This reinstatement of the boundaries between the nomadic
and settled peoples also contributed to the developing of more crystalized identities
centered around the creation of tribal confederations and loyalty to individual leaders,
most of whom claimed their descent from Chinggis Khan.[22] Therefore, the political
units that were formed in medieval Central Asia were not the direct expression of
ethnic groups. They were built on dynasties whose tribal legitimacy transmogrified
into dynastic legitimacy reinforced by the claims to religious authority.[23] The identities