Inscapes, Landscapes and Greyscapes: The Politics of Signification in Central Asia

A tale of two presidents: personality cult and symbolic nation-building in Turkmenistan

“…Others, in contrast, have focused on the role of elites and political parties in generating synergies impacting nation-building projects. Some have explored the correlation between power and national construction (Akbarzadeh 1999;Cummings 2002; Isaacs 2011, 2015; Peyrouse 2012b; 6 Beachain, Sheridan, and Stan 2012; Isaacs and With more 2013), the way this power is used and reinforced by symbols (Cummings 2002(Cummings ,2009(Cummings ,2013Denison 2009;6 Beachain 2011;Matveeva 2009), and, more recently, the role of neo-patrimonialism in a number of interesting cases in Central Asia (Kunysz 2012;Laruelle 2012a;Isaacs 2014). Another recent tendency has been to explore the competition between formal, informal, and even insurgent actors (Kevlihan 2007(Kevlihan , 2013a(Kevlihan , 2013bPolese and Kevlihan 2015) that have affected the way political structures and policies in the region have taken shape (Isaacs 2010;Dagiev 2014).…”

“…Scholars have investigated the relationship between nation-building and the construction of an official state culture (Kuru 2002;Marat 2009;Adams 2010;Dogan 2006), the use of various tools such as the cinema industry (Isaacs, forthcoming), collective memory (Edgar 2004), the use -and interpretationof history (Wolczuk 2000;Kuzio 2006), and the relationship between citizenship access, language policies, and participation (Arel 1995;Barrington 1995;Laitin 1998; 6 Beachain and Kevlihan 2013). The aforementioned foci have been integrated by the study of nontraditional tools in nation-building such as analysis of foreign policies (Cummings 2002;Anceschi 2008Anceschi , 2010, land reforms (Hierman and Nekbakhtsoev 2014), and the use of symbols to promote a new national identity (Kolsto 2000;Cummings 2009;Menga, forthcoming).…”

Neopatrimonialism and beyond: reassessing the formal and informal in the study of Central Asian politics

“…What are the mechanisms through which a bond between ruler and ruled in Central Asia is established? In Central Asia this could be most observable through an examination of the rhetorical, symbolic and ideological methods and mechanisms through which domination is constructed, interpreted and understood (Cummings, 2009). How have the leaders in Central Asia constructed the discourse of their domination, and how is it interpreted and given meaning by elites and the wider population?…”

“…Scholars have already begun to examine how leaderships in the region sought to create internal ideological signification in order to establish certainty and stability in the aftermath of Soviet collapse (Cummings 2009(Cummings : 1083. The use of symbolism and discourse is in ample evidence whether it is the attempts to establish charismatic authority through the ubiquitous presidential portraits hanging in every public building, mass spectacles or broad discourses and narratives regarding presidential leadership all play some role in the configuration of power and domination (Adams and Rustemova 2009).…”

When Sacred Sites Become Symbols of Nationhood

“…Historically, at the beginning of the 1990s the Republic of Kazakhstan was seen as a state of and for Kazakhs, a status that was slowly reshaped by Nursultan Nazarbayev into a multi-ethnic state. During the early 1990s Nazarbayev tried to emphasise the Islamic component of Kazakh national identity, only to give it up later for the concept of the republic as a secular state (Dave 2007;Aitken 2009;Cummings 2009). Therefore, Turkestan's official status is site of national heritage.…”