Russian Colonization and the Genesis of Kazak National Consciousness

Sabol, Steven

doi:10.1057/9780230599420

Cited by 56 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Kazakh territories, by the end of the 19th century, 162 RussianKazakh schools offered instruction to 3,560 boys and 962 girls (Abašin et al 2008;Dowler 2001;Olcott 1985;Sabol 2003). In Turkestan, the authorities first opened a few Russianmedium schools for the local populations and then a few bilingual schools (by 1888, 28 such schools catered to a total of 461 pupils)-they were located mainly in urban environments where locals had incentives to gain some Russian competence (Abašin et al 2008;Dowler 2001).…”

Section: Expanding Russification: 1863-1905mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The overall impact of Russian schooling in Central Asia was negligible, due to low levels of schooling, in particular among nomadic and rural populations, and competition from Islamic schools which remained the main educational option in the region. With a few exceptions, even the bilingual elite envisioned by the authorities did not materialize: the graduates of bilingual schools often failed to acquire Russian skills and literacy, due to the low quality of the Russian textbooks that had been created for the local populations and a shortage of competent teachers (Abašin et al 2008;Alpatov 2000;Belikov and Krysin 2001;Olcott 1985;Sabol 2003).…”

Section: Expanding Russification: 1863-1905mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Linguistic russification in the Russian Empire: peasants into Russians?

Pavlenko

2011

Russ Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to question the traditional view of tsarist language management as a conscious, consistent and long-lasting policy of linguistic russification and denationalization and to consider the actual policies, their context, and impact. Drawing on recent historiographies, I will show that the Russian administration had no unified language policy: its strategies varied significantly across time periods and geographic regions and were mediated by political, ethnic, religious, and class concerns. When russification policies were adopted, the key aim was to establish the dominance of Russian as a high language over Polish, German, and Tatar. At the same time, the authorities never created a comprehensive primary education system and, as a result, failed to spread Russian to the majority of non-Russian peasants. Ethnic elites adopted Russian as an additional language, yet this adoption did not increase their loyalty to the empire: the key outcome of russification policies was the mobilization of emerging national movements.Аннотация Главная задача данной статьи-поставить под вопрос традиционную трактовку имперской языковой политики как сознательной, последовательной, и долговременной политики языковой руссификации и денационализации и рас-смотреть имперские языковые законы и их конечный результат в историческом контексте. Опираясь на современные исторические исследования, я покажу, что имперская администрация не имела единого подхода к языковым вопросам: курс ее политики менялся в зависимости от исторического периода и географического положения региона и находился под влиянием политических, этнических, религиоз-ных, и социальных факторов. В ситуациях, где применялась политика руссификации, ее целью было установление доминации русского языка как языка культуры над польским, немецким, и татарским языками. В то же время, имперская администрация не смогла распространить начальное обучение на всей территории империи и, в результате, не смогла донести русский язык до большинства нерусских крестьян. Члены национальных элит выучили русский как дополнительный язык, но это не A. Pavlenko ( ) 332 A. Pavlenko усилило их лояльность по отношению к империи: главным результатом царской языковой политики была мобилизация национального народного движения.

show abstract

Section: Expanding Russification: 1863-1905mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Expanding Russification: 1863-1905mentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic russification in the Russian Empire: peasants into Russians?

Pavlenko

2011

Russ Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The key findings point out how development agendas and tools have been captured by powerful external agents and local power position holders, especially as far as organizing economic activities are concerned. This resonates with the cycles of power and repositioning of local rulers from the tsarist Russian Empire to the Soviet Union (Sabol 2003;Cummings and Hinnebusch 2011). The latter is significant not just as an example of modernizing affirmative empire (Martin 2001) but more so of imposing institutional hubris far beyond the reach of Central Asia's influence and resolve (Payne 2001;Khalid 2007;Cummings 2012).…”

Section: Development Trajectories: Adaptations Interventions and Expmentioning

confidence: 97%

Introduction: market adaptations, interventions and daily experience

Özcan

2015

Central Asian Survey

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue illuminates diverse realities of post-Soviet development in Central Asia through a multidisciplinary prism. The contributing articles are grounded in a range of social science disciplines including architecture, anthropology and geography, as well as drawing from mainstream social sciences. The analyses demonstrate how a synthesis of specialist knowledge from area studies and individual disciplinary methodologies can provide well-grounded critical positions on development.

show abstract

“…Dies hing vor allem damit zusammen, dass immer mehr Bauernsiedler aus den europäischen Teilen des russischen Imperiums in den Süden zogen, wo sie mit der indigenen Bevölkerung um Land und Wasser konkurrierten. Überall dort, wo Land parzelliert wurde und die neuen Besitzer ihre Ansprüche mit Unterstützung der russischen Kolonialbehörden verteidigten, konnten die Nomaden nicht bestehen, denn ihre Form der Viehhaltung setzte die extensive Nutzung riesiger Flächen voraus (Sabol 2003). Am wenigsten waren jene Kasachen vom Prozess einer stetigen Denomadisierung betroffen, die in den Steppen zwischen Kaspischem Meer und Aralsee lebten.…”

Section: Die "Rückständigste" Region Kasachstansunclassified

Handeln in Hungerkrisen

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Möglicherweise können diese Defizite durch zukünftige, stärker kulturhistorisch arbeitende Vulnerabilitätsstudien aufgefangen werden. Während für alle diese Bereiche Lösungen vorgeschlagen oder bereits eingeführt wurden, lässt sich die am häufigsten vorgebrachte Kritik kaum abstellen: Die Klage, dass mit dem Vulnerabilitätsansatz kein präzise definiertes Methoden-Instrumentarium einhergehe. Sie ist das Resultat einer Verwechslung: Als Brückenkonzept zielt der Ansatz gerade nicht darauf, die spezifischen Forschungsinventare der Fachdisziplinen zu überschreiben. Vielmehr bildet gerade die Aktivierung der methodischen Ressourcen des eigenen Wissensfeldes Grundlage und Inhalt effektiver interdisziplinärer Begegnungen. Die Stärke des Ansatzes liegt in seiner methodischen Offenheit, die Kontakt, Adaption und interdisziplinäres "borrowing" überhaupt erst ermöglicht (vgl. Weingart 2000). Ganz ähnlich wie die Brückenkonzepte "Diskurs" oder "Nachhaltigkeit" gibt der inhaltliche Kern des Vulnerabilitätskonzepts lediglich eine Perspektive für diesen Austausch vor: Multifaktorielle statt monokausaler Zugänge, dynamische Interdependenzen statt deterministischer Verläufe, Mensch-Natur Beziehungen als Verflechtungs-statt als Konfliktgeschichte. 9

show abstract

Russian Colonization and the Genesis of Kazak National Consciousness

Cited by 56 publications

References 0 publications

Linguistic russification in the Russian Empire: peasants into Russians?

Linguistic russification in the Russian Empire: peasants into Russians?

Introduction: market adaptations, interventions and daily experience

Handeln in Hungerkrisen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About