Chokan

Chingis Matayev

Article analysis of Scott Bailey’s “A biography in motion”

Bailey believes that writing biography on the life of a historical figure is not easy at all. Because as time progresses, modern historians “often write biographies with subconscious attention to issues relevant to their own time.” In his article Scott Bailey considers Chokan Valikhanov’s biography and tries to focus our attention on the versatility of the Kazakh traveller and underlining the fact that he was frequently on a move. Chokan, born Mukhammed Khanafiia, got Russian education and took part in numerous research expeditions to Central Eurasia, getting support from the Russian Empire and particularly from such Russian research institutes like RGO (Rossiyskoe Geographicheskoe Obwestvo). On this basis significant number of historians presumed that Valikhanov was zealous agent of Russian colonialism. However, it is a controversial question, in part because at the end of his life he decided to leave the world of scientific and geographical exploration and retired in order to live in a Kazakh village. Second portion of researchers believe that Valikhanov was harbinger of Kazakh nationalism, but this view is also not quite accurate, if we take into account that Chokan is Chingissid (descendant of Chingis Khan). Bailey’s thesis statement is: “… he (Valikhanov) was not strictly a colonial agent, nor was he a strict patron of Kazakh or Middle Horde nationalism… I would position him away from the polarities of nationalist, imperialist, or nobility, and instead argue that Valikhanov moved back and forth on a wide spectrum between these polarities…”

This paper will analyze Bailey’s article by considering his arguments for Valikhanov being an imperial collaborator and for being a promoter of proto-Kazakhstani nationalism as well. Hence it will imply that Chokan Valikhanov was not moving on the whole spectrum between polarities given in Bailey’s thesis. It will be concluded that Chokan...