Graham Smith, Vivien Law, Andrew Wilson, Annette Bohr, Edward Allworth. Nation-Building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands: The Politics of National Identities. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. xi + 293 pp. $110.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-521-59045-7.
Reviewed by Steven T. Duke
Published on H-Russia (September, 1999)
Nationalism and national identities remain As the authors recognize in the Preface, "it is key features of the post-Soviet world. This vol‐ clearly impossible for any one individual to be ume, one of many attempts in the last decade to conversant not only with the languages, histories better understand the nature and transformation and diverse political and social cultures of the of national identities in the Soviet Union and its fourteen new or restored borderland states, but successor states[1], contains nine chapters written also with the disparate academic disciplines re‐ by six authors afliated with Sidney Sussex Col‐ quired to arrive at a balanced picture of the lege in 1995. As the frst monograph-length collab‐ changes now underway" (p. ix). Yet while the es‐ orative efort of the Post-Soviet States Research says contained in this volume generally succeed Programme at Sidney Sussex College, this collec‐ in achieving their individual aims, overall the vol‐ tion of essays on twelve of the ffteen post-Soviet ume sufers from many of the problems inherent states (the Russian Federation, Lithuania, and in any collection of essays: promising approaches Tajikistan are excluded from detailed considera‐ and suggestive conclusions contained in one essay tion) is based on the premise that identity politics are not carried over into others; the subject mat‐ in the non-Russian states have an "elusive, ever- ter is segmented rather than integrated; the au‐ shifting nature" and change "kaleidoscopically in thors vary in their knowledge and use of local lan‐ the very moment when a coherent pattern guages; and individual essays diverge in their ba‐ seemed to be emerging...." (p. ix). Although this sic assumptions, style, methodology, and content. volume does not cover this topic as completely as Despite these weaknesses, the volume will beneft the second edition of The Nationalities Question advanced students (primarily graduate students) in the Post-Soviet States, edited by Graham Smith, and specialists alike. the essays in this volume are new and make it a In his introductory essay, Graham Smith, Di‐ welcome addition to the literature.[2] rector of the Post-Soviet States Research Pro‐ gramme, addresses issues of post-colonialism in H-Net Reviews relation to what he calls "borderland identities" can be seen in various combinations and (a term he never fully defnes). Smith challenges strengths depending on whether minority groups the notion that the Soviet Union was a simple fed‐ within the fourteen post-Soviet states possess a eration or an empire; instead, he believes the state patron (such as Russia, Poland, or Uzbek‐ USSR was a "federal colonial" polity because "the istan) and whether minority populations are re‐ particular nature of the Soviet federation ensured gionalized or dispersed geographically. that nation-building took place at both the eth‐ Three essays appear in the volume's Part I, norepublic and all-union levels" (p. 4). He argues entitled "Rediscovering National Histories": Na‐ that three main features exemplifed the "federal tional history and National identity in Ukraine colonial" nature of the fourteen ethnorepublics: and Belarus" by Andrew Wilson, "National identi‐ frst, the ethnorepublics lacked complete indepen‐ ty and myths of ethnogenesis in Transcaucasia" by dence in internal policies yet were able to exert a Viktor Shnirelman (who visited Sidney Sussex Col‐ signifcant amount of local control when national‐ lege for one term), and "History and group identi‐ ism was not part of the agenda; second, the Soviet ty in Central Asia" by Edward Allworth (who Union paradoxically "provided the social space spent a sabbatical year at the College, visiting for nation-building at the ethnorepublic scale" from Columbia University). (pp. 5-6) through programs such as korenizatsiia, Wilson's essay on Ukrainian and Belarusian despite its eforts to build a strong central state; historiography is the one essay here that ought to and third, the fourteen ethnorepublics' relations be required reading in all undergraduate history with Moscow difered considerably based in large courses on Muscovy and Imperial Russia. Wilson part on the nature and timing of their incorpora‐ provides wide-ranging analysis of seven historical tion into the Soviet Union. Thus, the image of Rus‐ myths perpetuated by Ukrainian and Belarusian sia as an expanding imperial state was not uni‐ historians which challenge Russophile claims to formly difused throughout the ethnic republics, the medieval kingdom of Kievan Rus' as the fore‐ either in the 1920s, 1940s, or 1980s. runner of Muscovy and the Romanov empire. In Smith also fnds variations within the "nation‐ Wilson's parlance, these seven include myths of alising regimes" that came to power as the Soviet origins, foundation myths, myths of descent, Union fell apart. He concludes three main per‐ homeland myths, myths of national character and spectives have shaped the way these nationalizing of the 'other,' myths of empire and colonialism, regimes "draw upon and bring into the public and myths of resistance and revival. Wilson con‐ sphere of the post-colonial present the codes of trasts these with Russophile myths that claim colonialism...." (p. 13). De-Sovietization has been Kievan Rus' as their own. The author rightly ar‐ achieved by outlawing the Communist Party, gues that Ukrainian historiography has been purging Soviet-era government ofcials, creating more successful than its Belarusian counterpart boundaries against migrants (primarily Russian in supporting these myths on a factual basis, al‐ speakers) in the realms of itizenship and state em‐ though Belarusian historians have made signif‐ ployment, and employing ethnic codes to win cant strides in their eforts. electoral support. Boundaries have been reinvent‐ According to Wilson's very readable summa‐ ed by essentializing one trait, particularly lan‐ ry, Ukrainophile historiography now asserts that guage, rediscovering the past to invent national the Ukrainian people were the frst inhabitants of heroes, and totalising specifc ethnic or linguistic the lands of the middle Dnieper (meaning the Rus‐ diferences into absolutes. Cultural standardiza‐ sians came later), although their recordable histo‐ tion has also promoted the titular languages at the ry begins with the Kievan Rus' state. Belaru‐ expense of Russian. Smith believes these factors
2 H-Net Reviews sophiles have likewise argued for a homeland on provide sufcient description of those camps or their current lands, contending that the east Slav‐ more clearly periodize their work. More could be ic tribes were highly diferentiated before the done to link historical revisionism in the Soviet founding of the Kievan state. era and period of transition to other political Both historiographies assert that Russian trends of the time--for example, what contributed speakers played only a marginal role in Kievan to the politicization of Vladislav Ardzinba (a pro‐ Rus', while Belarusian historians claim that an in‐ fessional historian who became Abkhazia's presi‐ dependent state of Polatskaia-Rus' existed even dent in the early 1990s) and Georgian historian before Kiev and fourished throughout the Marika Lordkipanidze. eleventh and twelfth centuries. Both also propose Edward Allworth's essay on the role of history that the Tatar invasions of the thirteenth century in group identities in Central Asia stresses the per‐ had limited impact on Ukrainian and Belarusian sistence of older, multiethnic trends in the region, territories, which were later taken over by the in contrast to the ethnic polarization in the Cauca‐ Kingdom of Lithuania, in which they enjoyed sig‐ sus region. The author argues that due to "the tra‐ nifcant linguistic and cultural infuence until the ditional urge for inter-ethnic symbiosis, ... ofcials Union of Lublin of 1569. Thanks to their resis‐ with monoethnic preoccupations have failed to tance under Poland-Lithuania, the independence overcome the infuence of the rich indivisible her‐ of the Cossack Hetmanate of the eighteenth centu‐ itage bolstering the resistance of the cultural ry, the formation of independent states in 1917-18, elites against persistent manipulation and distor‐ and their resistance to Bolshevik conquest, both tion of the area's history" (p. 68). Allworth discuss‐ nations could rightly claim the independence they es the multicultural precedent of Jadidism in the gained in 1991 was not a fuke but the result of early twentieth century, the Soviet-era search for frmly rooted historical developments. "harmless heroes," and the eforts of a few aca‐ Viktor Shnirelman's essay on Transcaucasia demic rebels in the 1960s and 1970s to rediscover also studies historical myths, yet in contrast to Temur (Tamerlane) as a local hero (albeit a de‐ Wilson, Shnirelman's focus includes the use of scendent of Chinggis Khan, not an Uzbek). such myths by politicians. Shnirelman chooses to Yet ofcial eforts to dictate which historical use a set of myths which do not correspond with myths were acceptable and which were not per‐ Wilson's straight-forward typology. The author sisted in the 1990s, and Allworth confesses that frames his analysis around the "three large-scale "the historiography produced in the post-commu‐ wars...fought in the region since the late 1980s: nist era resembles the Soviet version in most re‐ between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the en‐ spects" (p. 73). One explanation for this comes clave of Nagorno-Karabakh, between Georgia and from the active role Central Asian leaders have Abkhazia, and between Georgia and South Osse‐ played in ofering acceptable interpretations of tia" (p. 48). Shnirelman asserts that "the revision‐ the past: "In the 1990s, the presidents of Kazak‐ ist historians who began to appear on both sides stan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (all in the 1960s and 1970s tended to be more junior former Communist Party frst secretaries of their and less careful, albeit ambitious, scholars" (p. respective republics) increasingly ofer them‐ 51). This revisionism allowed both sides in all selves, like Stalin before them, as the leading three conficts to assert historical claims to each thinkers in their countries, thus attempting to specifc region. transfuse their politics into the realm of thought" Unfortunately for the reader, Shnirelman di‐ (p. 77). Although dissent has continued and new vides local historians into rough camps yet fails to meanings of dynasty have developed as reformist
3 H-Net Reviews scholars have gradually begun exploring the past, spelled twice (on pp. 102 and 109) and the term particularly the pre-revolutionary Jadid reforms, "Baltic nationalists" is used too freely. politicians have retained a signifcant infuence Although Smith relies on English- and Rus‐ over historical myths and interpretations in Cen‐ sian-language sources for his basic information, tral Asia in the 1990s. he rightly concludes that ethnic relations in Esto‐ Part II of the volume is entitled "Ethnopolitics nia and Latvia are not as strident as one might ex‐ and the Construction of Group Boundaries." It pect; he also notes that despite expressions of contains three essays: "Nation re-building and po‐ alienation among ethnic minorities, most non-Es‐ litical discourses of identity politics in the Baltic tonians and non-Latvians have "acknowledged states" by Graham Smith, "Redefning ethnic and the reality of their situation and have opted to in‐ linguistic boundaries in Ukraine: indigenes, set‐ tegrate themselves" into their current polity (p. tlers and Russophone Ukrainians" by Andrew Wil‐ 111). son, and "The Central Asian states as nationalising In contrast to the slight but growing predomi‐ regimes" by Annette Bohr. nance of indigenes in Estonia and Latvia, Ukraine Graham Smith's essay on the Baltic states ac‐ is more evenly divided. Andrew Wilson's second tually covers only Estonia and Latvia; Lithuania is essay in this volume assesses the competing excluded based on the incorrect assumption that myths and boundaries dividing the country's 21 because independent Lithuania granted citizen‐ million Ukrainophone Ukrainians from its 17 mil‐ ship to all individuals resident in the country at lion Russophone Ukrainians and 11 million Rus‐ the time of independence, ethnic concerns and re‐ sians (see p. 138). The author concludes that, lations have been solved. In fact, it is just as im‐ while "the range of identity options in Ukraine is portant to explore difering conceptions of identi‐ clearly wider than in many other post-communist ty politics, modes of political discourse, and the states" (p. 138), both ethnic Russians and Russo‐ identity politics of the settler communities in phone Ukrainians have had difculty in forming Lithuania as it is in Estonia and Latvia. social movements and political parties without Smith's analysis of nationalism and identity the relative advantages of the symbolic and insti‐ politics in Estonia and Latvia succeeds in identify‐ tutional resources enjoyed by Ukrainophones" (p. ing the contradictions contained in post-Soviet 135). While much of Wilson's argument about his‐ government initiatives toward Soviet-era institu‐ torical claims and myths duplicates his earlier es‐ tions, policies, and practices. For example, both say in this volume, the focus here is on popular at‐ countries adopted citizenship laws (for which titudes (rather than academic debates) that typi‐ they have been criticized) based on pre-1940 citi‐ cally confate ethnicity and language. While Wil‐ zenship and language exams, not residence status son, like Smith, too quickly uses the term "nation‐ in the early 1990s; both have also promoted the alist" to describe often diverse groups of people, status of the "core nation," the process of de-Sovi‐ his analysis is insightful and informative. etization, and protections for the culture of the Annette Bohr's essay on nationalizing regimes historic homeland. Yet the author also paints the in Central Asia does not include Tajikistan be‐ two countries' governments and parliaments in cause "since the outbreak of civil war there in broad strokes, failing to explore the tensions be‐ 1992, regional identities have become consolidat‐ tween and within government and parliament. ed and any concept of a unifed national identity Prime Ministers and Presidents are occasionally has been eroded" (note 2, p. 263). Bohr contradicts mentioned by name, yet Estonia's former (and Allworth's earlier essay in this volume as she con‐ present) Prime Minister Mart Laar's name is mis‐ cludes that all four states have implemented poli‐
4 H-Net Reviews cies that favor the titular nationality at the ex‐ assesses the role of fve specifc myths that help pense of ethnic minorities and multi-ethnic identi‐ confate language with ethnicity: myths of primor‐ ties alike. diality, of the chosen language, of conformity to Based on the work of two Kazakstani schol‐ Nature, of conformity to national character, and ars, Bohr divides members of the Kazakstani (and of foreign interest. Many of these myths were cre‐ also Central Asian) intelligentsia into three ated or developed by the Georgian-Scottish lin‐ groups: "rural members of the educated classes" guist Nikolai Marr (1864/5-1934) and were force‐ having a Kazak point of view; "the urban Kazak fully propounded by Zviad Gamsakhurdia, Geor‐ intelligentsia" which is largely Russifed and "es‐ gia's frst post-Soviet and strongly nationalistic tranged from Kazak culture"; and Kazaks educat‐ president. ed in Russian-language schools who "have assimi‐ Annette Bohr's second essay, on language pol‐ lated both Kazak and Russian cultures to a nearly icy in Uzbekistan, repeats some of the analysis equal degree."[3] She fnds that "contemporary contained in her frst essay. Her frst section, on Central Asian leaders are guided principally by language legislation, investigates the impact of the the members of the frst group" because it is the 1989 law 'On the State Language' (which required largest and because "It is they who fll the ranks of of state servants knowledge of the titular lan‐ the state apparatus, championing the notion of a guage) and the 1995 revised version of that law strong national state." "The primary targets of (which abolished compulsory knowledge for pub‐ their nationalising measures are not only ethnic lic sector employees but also removed the special Russians but also their Russifed co-ethnics," even secondary status of the Russian language in the though all residents of the countries could claim country). The revised law "further entrenched the local citizenship after the Soviet Union collapsed. hegemony of the Uzbek language within the state" Most nationalizing eforts have been accom‐ yet postponed the deadline for the full use of the plished "by stealth" (p. 140). state language in state functions until September Part III of the volume contains "Language 2005, when full conversion to a Latin-based script myths and the discourse of nation-building in is scheduled (p. 201). Uzbekistan's Russian and Georgia" by Vivien Law and "Language policy and Tajik minorities have failed to react in cohesive ethnic relations in Uzbekistan" by Annette Bohr. ways to this and other legislation, although some "381,400 ethnic Russians [permanently emigrated Law investigates the tension in Georgia be‐ to Russia] from 1989 to 1996, or 23.1 per cent of tween professional linguists and educated writers the Russian population resident in that republic with no formal training in linguistics. She asserts in 1989" (p. 207). Tens of thousands of Ukrainians, that "Oral communication plays a more ritualised Tatars, Belarusians, Germans and Jews have also role in the functioning of society than in contem‐ emigrated. The "bulk of the Tajik minority in porary English-speaking countries" (p. 168), and Uzbekistan has responded to the new laws with for this reason ethnolinguistic myths abound in relative equanimity" (p. 211). the country. Law concludes that language-extrin‐ sic myths (beliefs about a language's "origins and The most revealing section of Bohr's essay antiquity, its genetic afliations, its destiny, [and] summarizes the results of a survey conducted in its perfect match to its speakers or to Nature" [p. the Tashkent, Farghana, Samarkand and 175]) are much stronger in Georgia than lan‐ Khwarazm regions of Uzbekistan in June 1996. Lo‐ guage-intrinsic myths (beliefs about a language's cal residents conducted "600 structured inter‐ "purity, its euphoniousness, the size of its vocabu‐ views...in one of the three relevant languages" (p. lary, its expressiveness and so forth" [p. 188]). She 214). Although the survey's conclusions are not
5 H-Net Reviews terribly surprising--knowledge of Uzbek was low‐ ethnic groups, irrespective of their citizenship." er among Russians in Tashkent than in Khwarazm (See Note 4, p. 263.) region, most Russians and Russophones opposed Copyright (c) 1999 by H-Net, all rights re‐ the repeal of the Russian language's special status served. This work may be copied for non-proft while Uzbeks and Tajiks generally supported the educational use if proper credit is given to the au‐ measure, and most Russian speakers had no in‐ thor and the list. For other permission, please con‐ tention of learning the titular language-- it never‐ tact [email protected] theless provides valuable data by region, ethnici‐ ty, and language group. Overall this volume contains fascinating new essays which, although difering in content, style, methodology, focus, and use of local (non-Russian) languages, nevertheless comprise a welcome ad‐ dition to the growing literature on the changing roles of language, myth, identity, and national pol‐ itics in the post-Soviet states. NOTES [1]. Among the many edited volumes are Lubomyr Hajda and Mark Beissinger, eds., The Nationalities Factor in Soviet Politics and Society (Boulder: Westview Press, 1990); Graham Smith, ed., The Nationalities Question in the Post-Soviet States (London: Longman, 1990; 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1996); Gail W. Lapidus and Victor Za‐ slavsky with Philip Goldman, eds., From Union to Commonwealth: Nationalism and Separatism in the Soviet Republics (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni‐ versity Press, 1992); Ian Bremmer and Ray Taras, eds., Nation and Politics in the Soviet Successor States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Roman Szporluk, ed., National Identity and Ethnicity in Russia and the New States of Eurasia (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1994). [2]. Smith, ed. The Nationalities Question in the Post-Soviet States (London: Longman, 1996), 2nd edition. [3]. Bohr carefully uses the terms 'Kazakstani', 'Uzbekistani', 'Turkmenistani', and 'Kyrgyzstani' "to refer to citizens in those states, irrespective of their ethnic nationality. 'Kazak', 'Uzbek ', Turk‐ men', and '[Kyrgyz]' refer to members of those
6 H-Net Reviews
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-russia
Citation: Steven T. Duke. Review of Smith, Graham; Law, Vivien; Wilson, Andrew; Bohr, Annette; Allworth, Edward. Nation-Building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands: The Politics of National Identities. H- Russia, H-Net Reviews. September, 1999.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=3418
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
7