Many states and societies in today’s world are experiencing the rise of ethnic and religious consciousness. Therefore identity-related issues counted among the issues, which are the most debated, contested and attractive to both political elites and public. This vibrant growth in popularity of identity-related issues gives a result of upsurge of nationalism, radicalism, inter-ethnic and inter-communal tensions and disputes. One of the main reasons of the above-mentioned problems is the emergence of “exclusivist”, “narrow” identities, which lead to the raising tensions among different groups of people.
“Exclusivist” identities should be regarded as one of the biggest stumbling blocks in establishing stable and harmonious relations in a society. “Exclusivist” identities are constructed in opposition and in the worst cases against ‘the other/s’. In other words “exclusivist” identification denotes the process of creating national identity in opposition to the ‘other/s’, (i.e. being Kazakh means not being/or being against Russian, or being Uzbek means not being/or being against Tajik).
The following quite alarming example of efforts of building exclusivist identities was presented by one Russian analyst: “The national intelligentsia and authorities have discovered in ethnicisation a way of fighting for political and other dividends. Increased conflict between the region’s states can be explained by this: today, Uzbeks and Tajiks are not ‘brotherly nations’ in the ‘friendly family’ of the Soviet Union, but competitors, rivals for influence, economic resources and capital investment… Tajik ‘national’ ideology rivals and contradicts Uzbek ideology. The Uzbeks declared that the Tajiks were their ‘historic rivals’; the history of Tajikistan is presented in school textbooks and monographs as an alternative to the Uzbek account of Central Asian history.”[1]
Defining own identity in opposition to others badly hinders efforts to build peace and promote harmony within a society and in relations with the other states.
Let’s look more closely at the concept “identity”. As Amin Maloof points out identity is complete whole, complex, unique and irreplaceable. While every individual without exception possesses a composite identity, identity cannot be compartmentalized, cannot be divided up into halves or thirds. A person cannot possess several identities: every one got just one identity, made up of many components in a mixture that is unique to this person, just as other people’s identity is unique to them as individuals.[2]
While identity is singular, a complete whole, it is necessary to emphasize that identity is made up of a number of allegiances and identity is unique. Not that all human beings are the same, but that each one is different. People are not interchangeable, and often in the same family, between two brothers who have lived in the same environment, may be found small differences which make them act in diametrically opposite ways in matters relating to politics, religion and everyday life.[3]
If we really want to achieve durable peace in our own state and in relations with the other states, if we want to establish enduring stability and more or less harmonious relations inside our society, we have no any other choice than developing inclusive identities. Conflicts caused by differences of ethnicity, region, language, social status, world-views must be mitigated, settled and finally resolved by the adherence to the idea of inclusive identity.
It is the ripe time to abandon the efforts aimed at constructing the narrow, exclusivist identities in the Central Asian states and societies to foster flexible and inclusive identities. The contemporary world’s realities and the magnificent cultural heritage of Central Asia necessitate building tolerant and inclusive identities.
Each ethnic and communal group should be proud at own uniqueness. All of us resemble the parts of mosaic, after coming together we will construct a beautiful whole. Being Kazakh or the nature of Kazakhness should not be defined in opposition to being Russian or in opposition to Uzbek or being Uzbek. In similar way the nature of Uzbekness should not be defined in opposition to being Tajik or in opposition to Kazakhness.
On the other side, national identities have to be formed in a way that protects individual liberties and foster tolerant political culture and patriotic commitment to a country.
As well as the people of the Central Asia must be aware of the facts that the Islamic faith and civilization promote adherence to encompassing identity and world-view and that the Asianess means hospitality, which in turn means tolerance and “inclusiveness”.
Inclusive identities must be based upon the self-identification seeking common grounds with the others and therefore not built upon opposition to others. This perception should be built upon the premise that we live in the same planet, share a lot of commonalities, all of us are the children of Adam and Eve (for believers) or a parts of the mutually compatible ecosystem (for materialists).
In line of with Maloof it has to be underlined that, no doubt an Uzbek is different from a Kazakh, but every Uzbek is also different from every other Uzbek, and every Kazakh is different from every other Kazakh. And while a Kazakhstani Orthodox Christian is different from a Kazakhstani Muslim, every Kazakhstani Muslim is not totally identical to another Kazakhstani Muslim and in the same vein every Kazakhstani Orthodox Christian is not totally identical to another Kazakhstani Orthodox Christian. Therefore it is big injustice to ascribe collective crimes or other negative collective acts to other ethnic or religious groups. For instance, some people can be stupid, violent or uncivilized, but not the whole communities. Expressions such as “violent, radical or uncivilized X” (e.g. particular ethnic, communal or religious group) mold people’s minds even before they start thinking about the members or adherents of “X”. This deepens communication problems, builds artificial barriers between different people, moreover is used as a manipulation factor by advocates of the infamous theory “clash of civilizations”.
We hope that in near future the Central Asia will enjoy the tolerant inter-ethnic, inter-communal, inter- religious relationship as it was in its heydays.
We argue that the properly constructed inclusive national identity (it should be stressed that “inclusive identity” does not mean “divided or compartmentalized” one), which is compatible with the historical, cultural and civilizational heritage of the peoples of Central Asia will serve as a great source of unity, cohesion in ethnically and culturally diverse Kazakhstan and Central Asia.
Education plays a significant role in the formation of identity. Therefore whole system of education, especially the higher education must promote the ideas of positive relations in a society and pave the way to establish tolerant, inclusive identities. In this regard we may argue that from its very beginning SDU undertakes and successfully performs the mission of helping construct tolerant, positive and inclusive identities. The SDU’s culturally, ethnically diverse international academic staff, administration and students, as well as SDU’s environment where four languages are spoken and taught should be seen as the embodiments of the existence of inclusive identities.
[1] Sergei Abashin, The transformation of ethnic identity in Central Asia: a case study of the Uzbeks and Tajiks, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, http://www.iiss.org/programmes/russia-and-eurasia/russian-regional-perspectives-journal/rrp-volume-1-issue-2/the-transformation-of-ethnic-identity-in-central-asia/
[2] Amin Maloof, In the name of Identity, Penguin Books, 2003, p. 20-21
[3] Ibid, p. 26, 21.
Horizon Research Center©, January 2012, Almaty
O-Sense
We have 3 guests and no members online
