Abstract
This text is a response to Isabelle Ohayon, Julien Thorez, and Tomohiko Uyama, who commented on our essay that was published two years ago in this journal. We argue that “tactical essentialism,” embraced by Central Asian scholarly communities to circumvent external academic and political pressure, is not equivalent to biological primordialism. We also discuss the commemoration of the 1916 uprising in Kyrgyzstan to demonstrate how the production of history in Central Asia involves the participation of local communities. The socio-historical agenda in the region is fluid and is not dictated solely by the state, as our interlocutors suggest.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
