Book Review: Sarah Amsler The Politics of Knowledge in Central Asia: Science between Marx and the Market London: Routledge, 2007, 188 pp

Abstract

M uch has been written about Soviet and post-Soviet science that illustrates the nature of social science within the Soviet project, particularly within Russia. Amsler's work is an important and unique contribution to the practice of science in a society in transition from authoritarianism to liberal democracy in an outermost sphere of the post-Soviet space. Her work is based on the development of sociology as pedagogy, research practice and public discourse in the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan. Amsler provides an innovative case study in the sociology of knowledge, and on the practice of sociology in a post-colonial context suffused within a new capitalist agenda. She argues convincingly that Kyrgyzstani sociologists today find themselves 'between Marx and the market' as they re-define their activities, and negotiate a contested space by which the science of sociology can contribute to remaking the post-Soviet space.Amsler's work is based on the practice of Kyrgyzstani sociology as demarcated in late socialism and the first decade of independence to 2001. The use of primary and secondary sources drawn from Soviet sociologists during the era of perestroika and interviews with some of the early pioneers of Kyrgyzstani sociology provide unique and authentic insights into the work and conditions of academics in the late Soviet period. Her research shows the ways in which Soviet science was not monolithic, and that the activities of Kyrgyzstani sociologists illustrate the limits to scholarly autonomy -in terms of intellectual conceptualizations as well as that of the profound challenge of resource deprivation -in the new era of liberal democracy.Amsler's research draws from experiences dating back to 1998, when she began teaching in an educational reform project while based at the newly created Sociology Department of the American University Central Asia in the Kyrgyzstan capital of Bishkek. In examining the 'boundary work' undertaken by sociologists in contemporary Kyrgyzstan, Amsler shows how the scope of sociological practice is being redefined. These discussions and activities are envisaged by practitioners to be of critical import in the liberal democratic project in Kyrgyzstan. As Amsler notes, 'Science matters in Central Asia' (p. 33); social science and sociology are seen to be part and parcel of the knowledge and expertise required in the transition from authoritarianism.The development of this discipline and its boundaries is well told in the narrative. Although initially considered a social scientific endeavour which could provide important insights into the fledgling Soviet society, sociology as a discipline was delegitimized as a bourgeois undertaking by the Soviet academy in the 1920s, and Soviet science developed through the restrictive framework of Marxist-Leninist doctrine. Amsler carefully distinguishes the work of sociology within the centres of power and that of social scientists in the peripheral regions of Central