Minority Ethnic Mobilization in the Russian Federation by Dmitry P. Gorenburg (review)

353 Ab Imperio, 1/2005 в реальной, и в символической политике по отношению к рядо- вому потребителю. В целом и Хоффман, и Гронов существенно расширяют наше представление о повседневной жизни и культурных ценностях сталинского времени. Несмотря на разницу в подходе и мето- дологии, обе книги по-своему убедительны. Они, несомненно, произведут впечатление на спе- циалистов-историков. Хотелось бы надеяться, что со временем обе монографии появятся и в русском переводе. Thomas GOUMENOS Dmitry P. Gorenburg, Minority Ethnic Mobilization in the Russian Federation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 297 pp. Bibliography, index. ISBN: 0-52181807 -9. The study of ethnic mobilization has received a rather unbalanced interest in the growing literature on nationalism and ethnic politics. On the one hand, the term “mobilization ” appears quite often in the various studies of nationalism. However, in most cases this concept is not thoroughlyexaminedanditisemployed in a vague way. Moreover, the books and articles dealing with the issue of nationalist mobilization try, as a rule, to relate mobilization to the causes of the emergence of nationalism. Dmitry Gorenburg’s book is an eloquent attempt to overcome both these shortcomings as it locates at the center of his analysis the mobilization process of nationalist movements and changes the orientation of the core research question from why ethnic mobilization occurs to how this develops and what specific form it acquires. His research can be viewed as part of a recent historiographical tendency to tackle the issue of ethnic mobilization explicitly and directly, especially with regard to post-communist Eastern Europe.1 Gorenburg integrates into his theoretical framework the political-pro1 The most similar endeavour is Mark Beissinger’s Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. A Tidal Approach to the Study of Nationalism. New York, 2002.Seealso: Jonathan P. Stein. The Politics of National Minority Participation in PostCommunist Europe.State-building,Democracy,andEthnic Mobilization. NewYork, 2000; Zoltan Barany. Ethnic Mobilization Without Prerequisites. The East European Gypsies // World Politics. 2002. Vol. 54. Pp. 277-307; Philip Roeder. Soviet Federalism and Ethnic Mobilization // World Politics. 1991. Vol. 43. Pp. 196-232 and David D. Laitin. The National Uprisings in the Soviet Union // World Politics. 1991. Vol. 44(I). Pp. 139-177. 354 Рецензии/Reviews cess model, which has been widely usedinthestudyofsocialmovements, and the historical institutionalist model.Thestudyfocusesontheperiod between 1988 and 1993 and covers the intense last period of the Soviet Union as well as the early days of the independent Russian Federation . The objective of the book is to explore how and to what extent the ethnic institutions of the Soviet Union affected: i) the emergence and, primarily, the development of minority nationalist movements; and ii) the popular support that these movements received. In order to address his research questions, Gorenburg selects four ethnic republics in Russia – Tatarstan, Chuvashia, Bashkortostan and Khakassia – and examines comparatively the (nonviolent ) nationalist movements of their titular ethnic groups. The core argument of the book is that the ethnic institutions of the Soviet Union, which were established rather arbitrarily in the 1920s and 1930s, constitute the dominant explaining force of both the form of minoritymobilizationand thepopular support for the nationalist movements. Similarly, these ethnic institutions determined extensively which specific social categories were more favourably disposed to support nationalist ideology and support the movements. One of the author’s core findings is that the strength and number of the ethnic institutions in each region depended mostly on the position that the region held in the federal hierarchy of the Soviet state. Hence, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, and Chuvashia, as autonomous republics , had increased prospects for more developed ethnic institutions – and therefore stronger nationalist movements – compared with Khakassia, which possessed a lower administrative status. However, he points out certain differences in the strength of ethnic institutions even among regions of equal status. An additional finding that appears in many parts of the book is that one ethnic institution in particular determined which groups would support nationalist movements, namely, the extent of native language education. One might indicate three broader theoretical implications of Gorenburg ’s analysis: first is his ascertainment of institutional continuity. Even if institutions as such change or cease, their logic continues to frame the goals and beliefs of political actors for a considerable period of time. That means that the “old” logic informs to a large extent, according to Gorenburg, the content and the direction of change. Gorenburg’s second theoretical innovation is that he consciously focuses on the role of popular mobilization and support, rather than on elite strategies. James Fearon and David Laitin point out that one of the most difficult but meaningful 355 Ab Imperio, 1...