Page 50 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 50 of 265 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
44
One good explanation for the delay or unevenness of national identity development in the former Soviet Union is offered by Beissinger, who looks at the process from a tri-partite perspective: pre-existing structural conditions, institutional constraints and powerful contentious events. His central idea is that of tides: if at first nationalism movements emerged in Baltic States based on firm beliefs into their right for independence which where emboldened by the policies of glastnost, this constituted a contentious event, establishing new mutually enabling structural conditions that Baltic nationalist movements promoted by reproducing themselves elsewhere. As the tidal force of interacting nationalist movements spread throughout the Soviet Union, it gained enough momentum to successfully challenge the existing institutional constraints of the Soviet political system that was previously able to suppress any secessionist ideas. (Beissinger, 2002) In other words, the previously unthinkable secession movements became an accepted norm throughout the Soviet Union: the example set by Baltic States paved the way for pro-independence movement in Caucasian and Slavic republics. Central Asia is surprisingly absent from Beissinger’s analysis.58 Perhaps, the failure of Central Asia to mobilize such movements prior to the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) is due to the weakness of ethnic identities in the region. As some scholars point out, the identities of Central Asians are modern creations established by the colonization policies of Soviet Russia that intentionally created ethnic divisions on
58 Except for a noted failure of a nationalist movement in Uzbekistan prior to independence where the “nationalization waves” did not reach a tipping point to reverse the general norm of non-separatism until the Soviet Union collapsed (Beissinger, 2002, pp. 257-261)
Object Description
| Title | Market reforms, foreign direct investment and national identity: Non-national identity of Kazakhstan |
| Author | Zhanalin, Azamat |
| Author email | janalin_a@yahoo.com; zhanalin@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | International Relations |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-03-22 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-04-29 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | English, Robert |
| Advisor (committee member) |
James, Patrick Rorlich, Azade-Ayse |
| Abstract | The present study offers an analysis of the concept of non-national identity in application to the Republic of Kazakhstan as the most likely case. The primary hypothesis is that newly independent states, which are undergoing a rapid transition to market economy and actively pursue integration in the world economy and foreign direct investment, will experience fragmentation of their national identity, defined as non-national identity.; Three sites in Kazakhstan, Almaty, Astana and Aktau, were chosen for the study as representative of the market reforms in the republic as well as the best examples of the country’s pursuit of foreign direct investment and integration into the global economy. The data collected indicates that while Kazakhstan does demonstrate fragmentation of its national identity, it is not necessarily caused by the market reforms and the participation in the global trade. Alternative causal variables such as the Soviet and Russian colonial legacy, intra-ethnic cleavages among the Kazakhs and the prevalence of multi-vector foreign policy were found to contribute to the development of non-national identity of Kazakhstan. The study’s results also suggest that in the last few years, Kazakh identity is experiencing a rather strong revival as well, which may yet counteract the existing factors leading to the emergence of the non-national identity of Kazakhstan. |
| Keyword | identity; nationalism; Kazakhstan; market reforms; globalization; foreign direct investment; national identity; countries in transition; foreign policy; culture; former Soviet Union; Central Asia; patronage networks; energy; oil; post-colonial legacy; nation-state |
| Geographic subject (city or populated place) | Almaty; Astana; Aktau |
| Geographic subject (country) | Kazakhstan |
| Coverage date | 1970/2010 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3812 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Zhanalin, Azamat |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Zhanalin-4506 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume51/etd-Zhanalin-4506.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 50 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 44 One good explanation for the delay or unevenness of national identity development in the former Soviet Union is offered by Beissinger, who looks at the process from a tri-partite perspective: pre-existing structural conditions, institutional constraints and powerful contentious events. His central idea is that of tides: if at first nationalism movements emerged in Baltic States based on firm beliefs into their right for independence which where emboldened by the policies of glastnost, this constituted a contentious event, establishing new mutually enabling structural conditions that Baltic nationalist movements promoted by reproducing themselves elsewhere. As the tidal force of interacting nationalist movements spread throughout the Soviet Union, it gained enough momentum to successfully challenge the existing institutional constraints of the Soviet political system that was previously able to suppress any secessionist ideas. (Beissinger, 2002) In other words, the previously unthinkable secession movements became an accepted norm throughout the Soviet Union: the example set by Baltic States paved the way for pro-independence movement in Caucasian and Slavic republics. Central Asia is surprisingly absent from Beissinger’s analysis.58 Perhaps, the failure of Central Asia to mobilize such movements prior to the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) is due to the weakness of ethnic identities in the region. As some scholars point out, the identities of Central Asians are modern creations established by the colonization policies of Soviet Russia that intentionally created ethnic divisions on 58 Except for a noted failure of a nationalist movement in Uzbekistan prior to independence where the “nationalization waves” did not reach a tipping point to reverse the general norm of non-separatism until the Soviet Union collapsed (Beissinger, 2002, pp. 257-261) |
