Qazaqstan. Kazakhstan. قازقستان : labirinty sovremennogo postkolonialnogo diskursa [Qazaqstan, Kazakhstan, قازقستان : labyrinths of a modern post-colonial discourse]

Qazaqstan, Kazakhstan, قازقستان : labirinty sovremennogo postkolonial’nogo diskursa is a collection of articles by seven authors edited by Alima Bissenova, a prominent Kazakh scholar in postcolonial and decolonial studies. The aim of the book is not only to continue the conversation on post-colonial processes in Kazakhstan but also to engage a wider audience beyond academia. To achieve this aim, each author in the book focuses on a specific sphere, including literature, architecture, music, political and social agendas, and everyday interactions, to discuss how new identities are being shaped and eventually affecting nation-building processes in Kazakhstan.

In response to possible critique suggesting that Kazakhstan has never been a classical colony and the USSR has never been a classical empire, Alima Bissenova argues that the condition of coloniality is not necessarily limited to attributes of a colony (‘On Our Post-coloniality [instead of Introduction]’). Coloniality, as a condition, is considered by some scholars to be the ‘reverse side of modernity’ (Tlostanova & Mignolo, as cited by Bissenova, 27), and it is a product of the hegemonic position of some societies and states in relation to others. Thus, it is fair to apply the concepts of coloniality and post-coloniality to Kazakhstan.

The silver lining of the book is ‘the search for authenticity': some of the authors discuss and analyze how the people of Kazakhstan are dealing with it (Medeuova, Otan, Melnikov), while others are in search of their authenticity themselves (Mukasheva, Kadyrova). Authenticity is one of the core concepts in post-colonial processes, and it can be easily understood why. After years of living in discourses shaped by hegemons, people in post-colonial societies try to find and redefine themselves, to separate the ‘real’, ‘natural’ self from what was constructed by powerful hegemons. Kulshat Medeuova (Chapter 1), for example, argues that ‘special sensitivity to historical memory’ is peculiar to all post-Soviet countries, and architecture in Astana was significantly affected by this ‘desire to revitalize the ethnic past’ (92). In this case, authenticity clearly refers to ‘ethnic’, which, in turn, is essentialist, assuming that ethnicity is something constant and easy to replicate through familiar traditional images like balbals, Baiterek, domes, etc. However, the issue of who chooses, and thus constructs, what is ‘traditional’ and ‘familiar’ is not addressed by the author, though it may again challenge the whole idea of ‘authenticity’. In Merey Otan’s chapter (Chapter 4), the diversity of ‘authenticity’ is discussed more meticulously. She explores the two contrasting ways that Kazakh musicians use to authenticate musical instruments: while some musicians choose to return and reinvent the forgotten traditional instrument Qyl-Qobyz, others adapt the traditional Dombyra to modern needs and develop its electric version. Otan poses a question: what is more beneficial for Kazakh music, to stick to what is legitimately Kazakh or to go against conventions in pursuit of keeping national instruments relevant? Kazakh musical producer Nargiz Shukenova, for example, claims that ‘our folk instruments didn’t go through the development phases following the methods of recording or playing music at large venues (for example, stadiums)’ (TEDx Talks, 2023), and their modernization is a way of preserving the authentic sound of folk music.

It’s crucial, however, in the process of searching for ‘true’ selves, not to fall into essentialism, and not to discard the selves that seemingly don’t correspond to the ‘ideal idea’ of ourselves. In this regard, the works of special interest are those of Aliya Kadyrova and Assel Mukasheva, who are not professional scholars but actually live through the post-colonial process, not just analyze it. Through their works, we see that in the search for authenticity, instead of disrupting the hierarchy between a superior and an inferior by giving voice and power to the ‘subalterns’, the post-colonial process in Kazakhstan creates new hierarchies. Even in the absence of a hegemon, there are now two types of inferiorities: Russified Kazakhs, who are not ‘Kazakhs’ enough, are subject to sui generis slurs (‘mankurt’, ‘shala-Kazakh’), while ‘true Kazakhs’, who have preserved language and culture, are considered less cultured and named ‘mambets’.

The image of a ‘modern Kazakh woman’ is problematized in Kadyrova’s short stories (Chapter 5), which depict young urban Kazakh women attempting to find their roots and identity. Merely being a Kazakh woman is insufficient; one must prove it by meeting certain characteristics, which may differ dramatically depending on the interlocutor at a given moment. One such marker may be language, but mere knowledge of the language is not adequate. One of Kadyrova’s heroines endeavours to connect with Kazakh-speaking Kazakhs using the language but fails because she doesn’t grasp the meanings and deeper implications behind the words. ‘You are not one of them,’ her American colleague remarks, implying that she is not included in the cultural sphere of ‘true Kazakhs’. As Assel Mukasheva accurately observes in her chapter (Chapter 3), ‘a traditional, local’ during the Soviet era became ‘a euphemism, a barely noticeable gesture, comprehensible only to the insiders’ (185). Soviet trauma is thus manifested not only in the russification of Kazakhs but also in depriving them of the ability to discern these subtle hints and meanings. Mukasheva cites aityskers who refer to such people as Kadyrova’s characters as ‘mankurts’ (216), yet it's not clear from her work whether she agrees with such labels or not.

Reading Alima Bissenova’s chapter (Chapter 7), I once again confront the necessity to ponder who has a sufficiently authentic experience to speak for Kazakh women. Bissenova rightfully claims that the construct of a ‘woman of the East’ was invented for pragmatic aims, to facilitate dekulakization and recruit women for factory work, thus necessitating its revision and reconsideration. However, she also extends the argument by suggesting that Kazakh feminists, viewing through a Western lens, may uncritically apply it in attempts to ‘save’ those who may not desire such salvation. Such a line of thought inevitably raises certain questions. Are Kazakh feminists (whether viewing through a Western lens or not) not Kazakh enough to address issues they deem relevant to Kazakh women? And who is more legitimate (authentic enough) to decide whether ‘a woman of the East’ requires salvation or not?

Less evident, however, is the existence of a hierarchy between Kazakhs and non-Kazakhs in the post-colonial processes in Kazakhstan. The edited volume itself reflects this, focusing primarily on the ‘post-coloniality’ of Kazakhs, while at least 30% of our country’s population consists of other ethnic groups. Only Dmitriy Melnikov, in his chapter on Kazakhstani post-colonial literature, brings to discussion the post-colonial experience of Kazakhstani Russians by analyzing the literary works of Russian writers (Chapter 2). In the examples he provides, the authors attempt to reflect on the changes in their position that coincided with the overall ideological collapse. This once again raises the question of how to address hierarchies in a post-colonial society. Do we need to attempt to eradicate them altogether, or should we accept reverse hierarchies, enjoying the overthrow of the ‘ruling’ and becoming the ‘rulers'?

The notable strength of the edited volume is its capacity to prompt contemplation on various facets of post-colonial processes and to encourage reflection on our own positioning within them. Thanks to the relatively accessible language of the book, more individuals are invited to participate in discussions regarding our post-colonial trajectory and how to address it in a more holistic manner. Alima Bissenova’s preamble, ‘On Our Post-coloniality’ (instead of Introduction), offers significant insights and thought-provoking ideas for introspective readers. As Kulshat Medeuova aptly points out, scholars often apply theories that are irrelevant to our context, thereby overlooking a significant portion of our reality. The works featured in this collection could serve as the foundation and fertile ground for the development of our own ideas and theories about ourselves. However, as mentioned earlier, for some reason, the volume predominantly focuses on the experiences of Kazakh people in contemporary Kazakhstan. Furthermore, by labelling certain practices as ‘the most local’ (183) or certain groups of people as having ‘managed to preserve traditional Kazakh mentality’ (395), the collection inadvertently contributes to the reinforcement of hierarchies among Kazakhs themselves.