The aim of this study is to examine the formation and consolidation of the Pamiri people in Tajikistan. The research focuses on two topics. The first is to compare the primordialist and constructionist schools over the question of the features individuating ethnic groups. The formation of Pamiri ethnic identity during the Soviet rule was selected as a case study of this thesis. The second topic of this study is to examine the formation of Pamiri ethnic identity and the factors that contributed for its consolidation during the Soviet period. While the first topic is gathered around contemporary issues about ethnicity, the second one is based on the Soviet period with a focus on the policies about the nationality question.

This thesis conceptualizes post-Second World War Soviet émigré theory, i.e., how the Soviets made sense of their expatriates and related to them (something previously only studied in passing). To this end, the study draws on instructional, academic, and administrative Soviet sources. It also examines the application of this theory on the unconventional Estonian emigration in Sweden in reports from Soviet bureaucracies in 1953–1962. By comparing preconceptions to reality and exposing occasional mismatches, the study hopes to give insight into the properties and historical origins of this distinct and influential part of Soviet ideology.

The dissertation examines the roots of modernity at the turn of the 20th century through the prism of the relationship between nationalism and internationalism. This seemingly incompatible affiliation between the two ideological archenemies has produced one of the most intriguing paradoxes of modern history. While theoretically attempting to reject nationalism as a transient product of capitalism, Marxism has in practice oftentimes exploited its appeal and utilized its extensive institutional repertoire. The study traces the evolution of Marxism’s conceptualization of the nationality question—a slow shift from an outright rejection of nationalism to an acceptance of its progressive features, complexity, varieties and influences. Interweaving intellectual and cultural studies in history with the political and intellectual history of the European Left, the study offers an intricate narrative of the crossroads of two important ideologies in theory and practice. The dissertation’s comparative and transnational approach reveals several important hitherto superficially explored aspects of Marxism’s difficult dialogue with nationalism. Firstly, it re-evaluates Karl Marx and Friedrich’s views on the nationality question, from its outright denial to limited acceptance and application. Secondly, it re-examines the multitude of Social Democratic responses to nationalism before the Great War. The advent of mass politics and the popularization of Marxist ideas produced a range of diverse socialist responses to the national conundrum throughout Europe. A comparison of Western (French and German), East Central and Eastern European (Austrian, Polish and Russian) and Soviet attitudes highlights some of the startling similarities and differences between the various groups’ ideological constellations. Finally, the dissertation uses the case study of the Communist Workers’ Party of Poland (Komunistyczna Partia Robotnicza Polski, KPRP) to reveal certain insights about the cumulative heritage of Marxist thought on nationalism. An analysis of the KPRP reveals a lot not only about a national party’s struggles with nationalism (challenging many historiographical questions), but also about the diverse conceptualizations of Marx and Engels’ thought on nationalism, about European Social Democracy’s debates about the phenomenon, and about the Soviet nationality policy (within and outside the Soviet Union).

The dissertation examines the roots of modernity at the turn of the 20th century through the prism of the relationship between nationalism and internationalism. This seemingly incompatible affiliation between the two ideological archenemies has produced one of the most intriguing paradoxes of modern history. While theoretically attempting to reject nationalism as a transient product of capitalism, Marxism has in practice oftentimes exploited its appeal and utilized its extensive institutional repertoire. The study traces the evolution of Marxism’s conceptualization of the nationality question—a slow shift from an outright rejection of nationalism to an acceptance of its progressive features, complexity, varieties and influences. Interweaving intellectual and cultural studies in history with the political and intellectual history of the European Left, the study offers an intricate narrative of the crossroads of two important ideologies in theory and practice. The dissertation’s comparative and transnational approach reveals several important hitherto superficially explored aspects of Marxism’s difficult dialogue with nationalism. Firstly, it re-evaluates Karl Marx and Friedrich’s views on the nationality question, from its outright denial to limited acceptance and application. Secondly, it re-examines the multitude of Social Democratic responses to nationalism before the Great War. The advent of mass politics and the popularization of Marxist ideas produced a range of diverse socialist responses to the national conundrum throughout Europe. A comparison of Western (French and German), East Central and Eastern European (Austrian, Polish and Russian) and Soviet attitudes highlights some of the startling similarities and differences between the various groups’ ideological constellations. Finally, the dissertation uses the case study of the Communist Workers’ Party of Poland (Komunistyczna Partia Robotnicza Polski, KPRP) to reveal certain insights about the cumulative heritage of Marxist thought on nationalism. An analysis of the KPRP reveals a lot not only about a national party’s struggles with nationalism (challenging many historiographical questions), but also about the diverse conceptualizations of Marx and Engels’ thought on nationalism, about European Social Democracy’s debates about the phenomenon, and about the Soviet nationality policy (within and outside the Soviet Union).

This study aims to answer two interlinked questions with respect to ethnic conflict in Georgia: Why and how two ethnic groups (Abkhazians and Ossetians) in Georgia sought secession in 1990s rather than accepting unity under a common Georgian roof, and what explains the occurrence of ethnic conflicts between the Abkhazians and Georgians and between the South Ossetians and Georgians? The central argument of this thesis is that Soviet nationality policy was a foremost driving force in shaping consciousness of being ethnic groups in Georgia and set the stage for the inter-ethnic conflicts of the post-Soviet era. A number of factors explain the particular inter-ethnic conflicts in Georgia among ethnic groups, including a long historical relationship between the Georgian people and the Abkhaz and Ossetian minorities, but I argue that the foremost factor was the role of Soviet nationality policy that evolved from Lenin to Gorbachev, a policy that granted ethnic groups some level of privileges and fostered a wave of national self-assertion, Soviet nationality policy and the Soviet federal structure created numerous ethnic- and territorial-based autonomous units during the Soviet era; these units shaped their own political institutions, national intelligentsias, and bureaucratic elites, forming the basis for later nationalistic movements and developing a wish for self-determination and full independence. These institutions and beliefs made ethnic conflict in a post-Soviet Georgia inevitable.

No description available.