Remembering and forgetting: the state policy of memorializing Stalin's repression in post-Soviet Kazakhstan

Abstract

The general perception of Western analysts and observers is that the nation-states created as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union all treat the memory of the dark, repressive aspects of the Stalinist regime in public spaces as a symbolic element in the creation of a new post-Soviet identity [Denison, Michael. 2009. “The Art of the Impossible: Political Symbolism, and the Creation of National Identity and Collective Memory in Post-Soviet Turkmenistan.”Europe-Asia Studies61 (7): 1167–1187]. We argue that the government of Kazakhstan employs non-nationalistic discourse in its treatment of Stalinist victims’ commemoration in a variety of forms, through the creation of modern memorial complexes at the sites of horrific Soviet activity (mass burial places, labor camps, and detention centers), purpose-built museum exhibitions, and the commemorative speeches of its president and other officials. Kazakhstan's strategy in commemorating its Soviet past is designed to highlight the inclusiveness of repression on all peoples living in its territory at that time, not just Kazakhs, thereby assisting in bringing together its multinational and multiethnic society. Thus, the official stance treats this discourse as an important symbolic source of shaping the collective memory of the nation, based on “a general civil identity without prioritizing one ethnic group over another — a national unity, founded on the recognition of a common system of values and principles for all citizens” [Shakirova, Svetlana. 2012. “Letters to Nazarbaev: Kazakhstan's Intellectuals Debate National Identity.” February 7. Accessed July 28, 2015.http://postsovietpost.stanford.edu/discussion/letters-nazarbaev-kazakhstans-intellectuals-debate-national-identity].

Kazakhstan Gulag heritage: Dark tourism and selective interpretation

“…The “Alash” Hall focuses on the liquidation of the Khans' and rebellions against Russian and later Soviet authorities. This contradicts Kundakbayeva and Kassymova (, p. 617) and their assumption that the Kazakh commemorative narrative is

…created simply to immortalize the memory of the victims of Stalinist repression not to glorify them as Kazakh martyrs.

…”

“…Following the closure of the Gulag, buildings deteriorated and although such buildings can be viewed, many have decayed (Kundakbayeva & Kassymova, ). The museum opened in 2001, sharing functionality with a clinic, later in 2009, the Gulag administrative building was designated as one of the largest Gulag‐related museums (Barnes, ).…”

Ambiguity and dilution in Kazakhstan's Gulag heritage

“…This is primarily focussed around male narratives and the consideration of the females and children imprisoned at Alzhir is eclipsed. It has been argued that the Kazakh commemorative narrative is not developed from a nationalistic perspective but focussed on more general victims of the Stalinist era (Kundakbayeva & Kassymova, 2016). However, museum content features political and artistic Kazakh figures and portraits and narratives concerning those Kazakh nationals incarcerated.…”

The ludic lives of memoryscapes: Skateboarding post-Soviet peripheries

“…Post-Soviet memoryscapes are, like post-Soviet landscapes more generally, diverse (see Danzer, 2009;Forest and Johnson, 2002;Kundakbayeva and Kassymova, 2016;Myadar, 2017;Ter-Ghazaryan, 2013;Tlostanova, 2018). Digital elements of Soviet memoryscapes have drawn attention in recent years, particularly the ways social media is used to challenge public memory practices, in keeping with debates on social media and cultural memory more broadly (see Birkner and Donk, 2020).…”