Over the last two centuries, ‘tradition’ has been invoked in Central Asia by Russian and Soviet r... more Over the last two centuries, ‘tradition’ has been invoked in Central Asia by Russian and Soviet regimes, as well as by local Central Asian elites, largely in two ways: either as a deficiency to be overcome (often in juxtaposition to an aspirational ‘modernity’) or as a quality to be embraced (often in alignment with nationalism). The two are not mutually exclusive or even strictly separate, but the distinction serves well to outline general themes and dynamics in the work of tradition. It is likewise difficult to make clear distinc- tions between academic analyses and everyday invocations of the term, as they play off one another, and entirely new genres of writing and practice are still emerging. The centrality of tradition in today’s Central Asia cannot, however, be denied.
Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 2022
As part of an article symposium on Partha Dasgupta and Sanjeev Goyal’s “Narrow Identities” (2019,... more As part of an article symposium on Partha Dasgupta and Sanjeev Goyal’s “Narrow Identities” (2019, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics), Peter Finke offers a critical anthropological perspective on the concept of social identity and its modeling in economics.
Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 2022
As part of an article symposium on Partha Dasgupta and Sanjeev Goyal’s “Narrow Identities” (2019,... more As part of an article symposium on Partha Dasgupta and Sanjeev Goyal’s “Narrow Identities” (2019, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics), Peter Finke offers a critical anthropological perspective on the concept of social identity and its modeling in economics.
The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology, 2018
Identity is a key term in anthropology but it is also a contested one, dealing with the question ... more Identity is a key term in anthropology but it is also a contested one, dealing with the question of who we are in relation to others. It relates, on the one hand, to categories of the individual or sameness with oneself and, on the other, to collective distinctions of otherness. It is both a practice and a process of cognitive classification. It is fluid and transcending boundaries but, to a certain degree, has to be stable in order for others to identify one as theirs. Furthermore, it is at the same time a public discourse and an obvious phenomenon in the world and is thus an object of inquiry if not an analytical category. Most prominent among the many identity aspects we employ is probably the ethnic one, which hinges on a bundle of markers used to distinguish each other in presumed cultural terms, always embedded in power games that try to secure political support and loyalty. Identity is a key term in anthropology today but it is also one full of ambiguities. It is, on the one hand, both new and old, some might even say outdated. And it is, on the other hand, omnipresent and seemingly self-explanatory but also highly contested, accused of being fashionable and lacking analytical precision. It is new as it became prominent in the discipline only during the 1970s and has since experienced a remarkable popularity. At the same time, the very concept behind it, namely the question of who we are in relation to others, socially, culturally, and biologically-can be said to be as old as the engagement with anthropological questions themselves. And it is precisely due to this omnipresence and its multiple meanings that identity-in a frequently expressed opinion-has become something of a black box for the unexplainable in human behaviour and social interaction (Brubaker and Cooper 2000). Let us begin with the critique. As with many anthropological concepts, identity is not only a concept that is shared with other disciplines, sociology and psychology in particular, but also one that simultaneously carrying a lay understanding that often interferes with the academic usage. It is thus a classical case of what Anthony Giddens (1976) has called the "dual hermeneutics" of the social sciences. We do not "own" our concepts but have to share them with popular and political discourses. In popular usage, however, concepts often prevail that have largely been abandoned in academia or have fundamentally changed their meaning
A. Ilkhamov’s article “Archeology of Uzbek Identity” is an attempt to describe the creation durin... more A. Ilkhamov’s article “Archeology of Uzbek Identity” is an attempt to describe the creation during the Soviet period of the Uzbek nation and identity from earlier groups and identities. The author takes a position opposed to the common view that nations develop naturally from earlier ethnic and tribal components. He does not share the “radical” constructivist position and emphasizes the role that existing pre-Soviet ethnic or social groups played in nation building. This commentary emphasizes the article’s anthropological aspects and theoretical implications, leaving to other specialists a critique of the weaknesses of his theoretical concepts. Ilkhamov’s argument includes three closely related threads. The first claims that contemporary Uzbeks were formed from three separate ethnic or social communities, which mingled with each other over the centuries but were recognizable and independent in the early twentieth century. The second defines nation building as primarily a political process initiated by the Soviet elite and implemented by local intellectuals. The third—the theoretical conclusion based on the other two threads—is a skeptical treatment of teleological explanations of any national development, as if ethnic or tribal groups of various origins did nothing but wait to be unified from their birth. The three communities mentioned above are Kipchak tribes following Muhammed Shaybani during his conquest of Maverannakhr; earlier Turkic tribes (speaking Oguz and Karluk languages); and long-settled populations, Turkicor
Introduction La Mongolie est certainement l’une des regions archetypales du nomadisme pastoral da... more Introduction La Mongolie est certainement l’une des regions archetypales du nomadisme pastoral dans le monde. Ceci n’est pas surprenant si l’on examine les conditions naturelles du pays. Sa plus grande partie est occupee par de vastes steppes et deserts, parfois accidentes parfois plats, qui s’etendent a perte de vue. Les quelques monts qui rompent ces etendues plates culminent, a l’ouest du pays, dans la chaine de l’Altay. Cette chaine montagneuse s’etend a la fois sur la Russie, la Chine et...
Pastoralists in Western Mongolia face a range of challenges during their annual grazing cycle due... more Pastoralists in Western Mongolia face a range of challenges during their annual grazing cycle due to the simultaneous but conflicting needs for secure allocation rules and a high degree of flexibility. In this paper, I analyze the seasonal arrangements and corresponding strategies that households adopt to deal with unpredictable environmental conditions and the demands of supplying livestock with sufficient forage throughout the year. In contrast to game theory simulations, I argue that dilemmas are: a) often not a question of cooperating or not, but form continua of more or less; and b) socially embedded as people operate in a multitude of relationships that influence their decision-making. Therefore, sharing information in a manner that prioritizes the requirements of individual households while not jeopardizing social reputation is crucially important. Rhetorical skills play an important role in this regard, but there are also situations when herders blatantly ignore state law or...
International Encyclopaedia of Anthropology , 2018
Identity is a key term in anthropology but it is also a contested one, dealing with the question ... more Identity is a key term in anthropology but it is also a contested one, dealing with the question of who we are in relation to others. It relates, on the one hand, to categories of the individual or sameness with oneself and, on the other, to collective distinctions of otherness. It is both a practice and a process of cognitive classification. It is fluid and transcending boundaries but, to a certain degree, has to be stable in order for others to identify one as theirs. Furthermore, it is at the same time a public discourse and an obvious phenomenon in the world and is thus an object of inquiry if not an analytical category. Most prominent among the many identity aspects we employ is probably the ethnic one, which hinges on a bundle of markers used to distinguish each other in presumed cultural terms, always embedded in power games that try to secure political support and loyalty. Identity is a key term in anthropology today but it is also one full of ambiguities. It is, on the one hand, both new and old, some might even say outdated. And it is, on the other hand, omnipresent and seemingly self-explanatory but also highly contested, accused of being fashionable and lacking analytical precision. It is new as it became prominent in the discipline only during the 1970s and has since experienced a remarkable popularity. At the same time, the very concept behind it, namely the question of who we are in relation to others, socially, culturally, and biologically-can be said to be as old as the engagement with anthropological questions themselves. And it is precisely due to this omnipresence and its multiple meanings that identity-in a frequently expressed opinion-has become something of a black box for the unexplainable in human behaviour and social interaction (Brubaker and Cooper 2000). Let us begin with the critique. As with many anthropological concepts, identity is not only a concept that is shared with other disciplines, sociology and psychology in particular, but also one that simultaneously carrying a lay understanding that often interferes with the academic usage. It is thus a classical case of what Anthony Giddens (1976) has called the "dual hermeneutics" of the social sciences. We do not "own" our concepts but have to share them with popular and political discourses. In popular usage, however, concepts often prevail that have largely been abandoned in academia or have fundamentally changed their meaning
Over the last two centuries, ‘tradition’ has been invoked in Central Asia by Russian and Soviet r... more Over the last two centuries, ‘tradition’ has been invoked in Central Asia by Russian and Soviet regimes, as well as by local Central Asian elites, largely in two ways: either as a deficiency to be overcome (often in juxtaposition to an aspirational ‘modernity’) or as a quality to be embraced (often in alignment with nationalism). The two are not mutually exclusive or even strictly separate, but the distinction serves well to outline general themes and dynamics in the work of tradition. It is likewise difficult to make clear distinc- tions between academic analyses and everyday invocations of the term, as they play off one another, and entirely new genres of writing and practice are still emerging. The centrality of tradition in today’s Central Asia cannot, however, be denied.
Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 2022
As part of an article symposium on Partha Dasgupta and Sanjeev Goyal’s “Narrow Identities” (2019,... more As part of an article symposium on Partha Dasgupta and Sanjeev Goyal’s “Narrow Identities” (2019, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics), Peter Finke offers a critical anthropological perspective on the concept of social identity and its modeling in economics.
Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 2022
As part of an article symposium on Partha Dasgupta and Sanjeev Goyal’s “Narrow Identities” (2019,... more As part of an article symposium on Partha Dasgupta and Sanjeev Goyal’s “Narrow Identities” (2019, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics), Peter Finke offers a critical anthropological perspective on the concept of social identity and its modeling in economics.
The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology, 2018
Identity is a key term in anthropology but it is also a contested one, dealing with the question ... more Identity is a key term in anthropology but it is also a contested one, dealing with the question of who we are in relation to others. It relates, on the one hand, to categories of the individual or sameness with oneself and, on the other, to collective distinctions of otherness. It is both a practice and a process of cognitive classification. It is fluid and transcending boundaries but, to a certain degree, has to be stable in order for others to identify one as theirs. Furthermore, it is at the same time a public discourse and an obvious phenomenon in the world and is thus an object of inquiry if not an analytical category. Most prominent among the many identity aspects we employ is probably the ethnic one, which hinges on a bundle of markers used to distinguish each other in presumed cultural terms, always embedded in power games that try to secure political support and loyalty. Identity is a key term in anthropology today but it is also one full of ambiguities. It is, on the one hand, both new and old, some might even say outdated. And it is, on the other hand, omnipresent and seemingly self-explanatory but also highly contested, accused of being fashionable and lacking analytical precision. It is new as it became prominent in the discipline only during the 1970s and has since experienced a remarkable popularity. At the same time, the very concept behind it, namely the question of who we are in relation to others, socially, culturally, and biologically-can be said to be as old as the engagement with anthropological questions themselves. And it is precisely due to this omnipresence and its multiple meanings that identity-in a frequently expressed opinion-has become something of a black box for the unexplainable in human behaviour and social interaction (Brubaker and Cooper 2000). Let us begin with the critique. As with many anthropological concepts, identity is not only a concept that is shared with other disciplines, sociology and psychology in particular, but also one that simultaneously carrying a lay understanding that often interferes with the academic usage. It is thus a classical case of what Anthony Giddens (1976) has called the "dual hermeneutics" of the social sciences. We do not "own" our concepts but have to share them with popular and political discourses. In popular usage, however, concepts often prevail that have largely been abandoned in academia or have fundamentally changed their meaning
A. Ilkhamov’s article “Archeology of Uzbek Identity” is an attempt to describe the creation durin... more A. Ilkhamov’s article “Archeology of Uzbek Identity” is an attempt to describe the creation during the Soviet period of the Uzbek nation and identity from earlier groups and identities. The author takes a position opposed to the common view that nations develop naturally from earlier ethnic and tribal components. He does not share the “radical” constructivist position and emphasizes the role that existing pre-Soviet ethnic or social groups played in nation building. This commentary emphasizes the article’s anthropological aspects and theoretical implications, leaving to other specialists a critique of the weaknesses of his theoretical concepts. Ilkhamov’s argument includes three closely related threads. The first claims that contemporary Uzbeks were formed from three separate ethnic or social communities, which mingled with each other over the centuries but were recognizable and independent in the early twentieth century. The second defines nation building as primarily a political process initiated by the Soviet elite and implemented by local intellectuals. The third—the theoretical conclusion based on the other two threads—is a skeptical treatment of teleological explanations of any national development, as if ethnic or tribal groups of various origins did nothing but wait to be unified from their birth. The three communities mentioned above are Kipchak tribes following Muhammed Shaybani during his conquest of Maverannakhr; earlier Turkic tribes (speaking Oguz and Karluk languages); and long-settled populations, Turkicor
Introduction La Mongolie est certainement l’une des regions archetypales du nomadisme pastoral da... more Introduction La Mongolie est certainement l’une des regions archetypales du nomadisme pastoral dans le monde. Ceci n’est pas surprenant si l’on examine les conditions naturelles du pays. Sa plus grande partie est occupee par de vastes steppes et deserts, parfois accidentes parfois plats, qui s’etendent a perte de vue. Les quelques monts qui rompent ces etendues plates culminent, a l’ouest du pays, dans la chaine de l’Altay. Cette chaine montagneuse s’etend a la fois sur la Russie, la Chine et...
Pastoralists in Western Mongolia face a range of challenges during their annual grazing cycle due... more Pastoralists in Western Mongolia face a range of challenges during their annual grazing cycle due to the simultaneous but conflicting needs for secure allocation rules and a high degree of flexibility. In this paper, I analyze the seasonal arrangements and corresponding strategies that households adopt to deal with unpredictable environmental conditions and the demands of supplying livestock with sufficient forage throughout the year. In contrast to game theory simulations, I argue that dilemmas are: a) often not a question of cooperating or not, but form continua of more or less; and b) socially embedded as people operate in a multitude of relationships that influence their decision-making. Therefore, sharing information in a manner that prioritizes the requirements of individual households while not jeopardizing social reputation is crucially important. Rhetorical skills play an important role in this regard, but there are also situations when herders blatantly ignore state law or...
International Encyclopaedia of Anthropology , 2018
Identity is a key term in anthropology but it is also a contested one, dealing with the question ... more Identity is a key term in anthropology but it is also a contested one, dealing with the question of who we are in relation to others. It relates, on the one hand, to categories of the individual or sameness with oneself and, on the other, to collective distinctions of otherness. It is both a practice and a process of cognitive classification. It is fluid and transcending boundaries but, to a certain degree, has to be stable in order for others to identify one as theirs. Furthermore, it is at the same time a public discourse and an obvious phenomenon in the world and is thus an object of inquiry if not an analytical category. Most prominent among the many identity aspects we employ is probably the ethnic one, which hinges on a bundle of markers used to distinguish each other in presumed cultural terms, always embedded in power games that try to secure political support and loyalty. Identity is a key term in anthropology today but it is also one full of ambiguities. It is, on the one hand, both new and old, some might even say outdated. And it is, on the other hand, omnipresent and seemingly self-explanatory but also highly contested, accused of being fashionable and lacking analytical precision. It is new as it became prominent in the discipline only during the 1970s and has since experienced a remarkable popularity. At the same time, the very concept behind it, namely the question of who we are in relation to others, socially, culturally, and biologically-can be said to be as old as the engagement with anthropological questions themselves. And it is precisely due to this omnipresence and its multiple meanings that identity-in a frequently expressed opinion-has become something of a black box for the unexplainable in human behaviour and social interaction (Brubaker and Cooper 2000). Let us begin with the critique. As with many anthropological concepts, identity is not only a concept that is shared with other disciplines, sociology and psychology in particular, but also one that simultaneously carrying a lay understanding that often interferes with the academic usage. It is thus a classical case of what Anthony Giddens (1976) has called the "dual hermeneutics" of the social sciences. We do not "own" our concepts but have to share them with popular and political discourses. In popular usage, however, concepts often prevail that have largely been abandoned in academia or have fundamentally changed their meaning
Uploads
tions between academic analyses and everyday invocations of the term, as they play off one another, and entirely new genres of writing and practice are still emerging. The centrality of tradition in today’s Central Asia cannot, however, be denied.
tions between academic analyses and everyday invocations of the term, as they play off one another, and entirely new genres of writing and practice are still emerging. The centrality of tradition in today’s Central Asia cannot, however, be denied.