Civilisational Models of Politogenesis ed. by Dmitri M. Bondarenko, Andrey V. Korotayev (review)

611 Ab Imperio, 3/2004 to historical information. See, for instance, entries on Bokhara (pp. 40-42); Schahrokh, or present day Khojand (pp. 80-83); Otrar (p. 74) and Turkestan (pp. 95-97). Conspicuously missing is an entry on Samarkand. The present selection also offers entries on Tatar, Turk, Turkestani, Turkmen, and Uzbek nations. This publication has a largely symbolic value, for it was designed to commemorate a historic contribution and to mark the establishment of scholarly exchanges between French and Central Asian academics . In the preface, Vincent Fourniau points out that Central Asia remains a region not fully accessed or explored by Europeans; this situation is aggravated further by the fact that only few know about similar works in Central Asia. With the emergence of a new generation of French and other European researchers on CentralAsia, the rising need to bring these people closer has made it necessary to have a greater exchange of knowledge and ideas. This volume would have enriched its academic value had the project attracted regional scholars to offer their impressions and evaluations about French and European contributions and their impact toward understanding Central Asia. Emilian KAVALSKI Dmitri M. Bondarenko and Andrey V. Korotayev (Eds.), Civilisational Models of Politogenesis (Moscow : Russian Academy of Sciences, 2000). 318 p. ISBN 5-201-05100-6. Increasingly researchers tend to heed and adopt what are perceived as “non-western” approaches. In its current form, this inclination has been spurred by Samuel Huntington ’s memorable provocation.1 In a similar fashion, although in a much more sophisticated and judicious manner, this suggestion has been elaborated recently by the venerable Donald Puchala.2 Thereby, one is tempted to gauge the gumption of the volume edited by Dmitry Bondarenko and Andrey Korotayev along the lines of this intellectual tradition. Civilisational Models of Politogenesis shares many of the features of this literature, especially in its presentation of views of “subaltern ” and “marginalized” groups. However, the volume indicates a number of methodological problems : mainly it fails to present a convincing structure for the discussion of its topic and as a result undertakes a markedly unqualified approachdriven , rather than problem-driven research. This shortcoming effec1 S. Huntington. The Clash of Civilisations // Foreign Affairs. 1993. Vol. 72. Pp. 22-49. 2 D. Puchala. Theory and History in International Relations. New York, 2003. 612 Рецензии/Reviews tively prevents Civilisational Models of Politogenesis to ask some of the main questions at the center of its analysis: how do individuals organize themselves in social groups? How do they establish control and power-relations? How is compliance with social rules achieved? The bulk of those deficiencies stems from the theoretical section of the volume, comprising the first three chapters. In their introduction , Bondarenko and Korotayev explain that the term “politogenesis” defines not merely the process of state-formation, but the dynamics of production of “complex political organization” (pp. 16-17). However, this elaboration is obscured by the subsequent analysis, which fails to indicate the significance of such a distinction. The contradiction is made apparent in the chapter by Denis Vorobyov, who proffers the understanding that politogenesis suggests not only the formation (as the editors insist), but also the “change and development of a society ’s political structure”, which “is also possible” on the “stateless” level (p. 157). As the volume makes apparent, the aim of the editors and most of the contributors is not so much to study “politogenesis”, but rather to unpack the notion of statehood and suggest the exegetical value of non-state-centric research. Regrettably, in their attempt they have been let down by their method. As Bondarenko and Korotayev indicate , the volume adopts an evolutionary process-tracing approach to the achievement of the “same level of system complexity through different pathways of evolution, which appeared simultaneously” (p. 5). Marina Butovskaya engages in this mode of analysis in her chapter on the “biosocial preconditions for socio-political alternativity” (p. 35). In effect what she attempts is a re-conceptualization of the “socioecological ” perspective of human organization as an outcome of the patterns of relations existing among primates. Thereby, Butovskaya claims that “social relationships are outcomes of ecological pressures on individuals” (p. 36). Such an assertion is perhaps refreshing...