In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

xi Preface This book began as a microstudy about why people in the Russian republic of Tatarstan threw their support behind nationalist movements in the early 1990s. It developed into an investigation comparing all of Russia’s republics. Why did people with minority ethnic identities in some other republics—which were analogous to Tatarstan in so many ways—pass through this period with so little interest in movements calling for national revival? Why didn’t the Russian Federation mimic the Soviet Union’s implosion along ethnic lines? Investigating these questions prompted a set of inquiries into the relationship between mass and elite, individual identity and nationalist ideology, and the role of economic structures versus human agency in the formation of political preferences. Contrary to popular expectations as well as to the broad attention the subject has received among scholars,nationalism very often fails to take root.Russia,with its fluctuating and ultimately failed nationalist mobilizations across its republics, is a case in point. Throughout the book I show that the usual suspects—cultural difference, religion, language, demographic crises, and levels of regional wealth or poverty—do not lead to nationalism. What does inspire people to respond to leaders calling for nationalist transformation? I argue that people must develop a group grievance—a feeling of resentment about important aspects of their present situation—that they share with other people with the same ethnic affiliation. Grievances are not simply present (or absent) among people with ethnic identities ; rather, they develop out of an interaction between people’s lived experiences and the specific messages that nationalists articulate to make sense of those experiences. For grievances to develop, it is not enough for nationalists to define current conditions as unjustly oppressing people with a particular ethnic identity ; they must also convince individuals that their personal interests in material success and social status are tied to the fate of the nation. Nationalist leaders try, in other words, to create a sense of nationhood among people by stoking a sense of outrage that current conditions (the status quo) ignore their interests on the basis of their ethnicity. The nationalist message cannot exist at a purely rhetorical level. It must describe, with a certain degree of plausibility, people’s experience of existing realities . Where nationalism emerged in Russia’s republics, nationalist entrepreneurs depicted an ethnic injustice: inequality in local labor markets. Their message was xii PREFACE not entirely accurate, for the labor situation in Russia’s republics actually privileged titular minorities vis-à-vis ethnic Russians in many ways.But the nationalist message resonated with central experiences of the time: rising job insecurity and fear of unemployment in the crisis-ridden economy of the late Soviet era. Thus, nationalism develops out of a dynamic interaction between economic structures, the discourse of political entrepreneurs, and the experiences of ordinary people. This combination suggests that mass nationalist mobilization is far from easy and that the sustained politicization of mass ethnic populations is actually more of a rare than a regular occurrence.This book joins several other recent approaches to the subject of nationalism and ethnic politics to chip away at the expectation— often found among policymakers and other interested observers—that people with ethnic affiliations form distinct interest groups ready to mobilize behind nationalist leaders at a moment’s notice. A project that undergoes as many evolutions as this one has incurs a lot of debts along the way. First, I acknowledge the Department of Political Science of the University of Chicago, where this project began, for providing a remarkably stimulating environment. I was very fortunate to have had a trio of brilliant advisers: David Laitin, Ronald Suny, and John Padgett not only offered support through the various phases of the project but also provided specific, valuable, and very diverse criticisms and insights. It is no exaggeration to say that I cannot imagine a better experience, and I am grateful to each of them. I express particular appreciation to David Laitin. He provided an example of how to “do” political science in so many respects, from conducting field research to carrying out fine-grained, well-documented comparative research across the Soviet space. I am grateful for his consistent support over the years. I acknowledge and express appreciation to the various institutions that have supported the research and writing of this book, including Harvard University’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Columbia University’s Harriman Institute, the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute, the Kennan Institute of the...

Share