Chokan

In this article Scott Bailey examines Valikhanov’s biography in the prospect of his “geographic mobility and the fluidity of his identity” (Bailey, p.168). He argues that Valikhanov was not agent of Russian Empire, nor was he a harbinger of Kazakh nationalism. Instead the author claims that Valikhanov was able to consolidate multiple political attitudes of imperialism, nationalism, and nobility. Taking into account the scenario of Valikhanov’s career, author points out that Valikhanov’s primary impact on the incorporation of several political dimensions was the fact of being a scholar-traveler affected by geographic motion and adaptation to various cultural environments.

Bailey constructs his argument of Valikhanov’s imperialism based on the assumption that colonial Russian Empire promoted the spread of “civilization” to “backward” Kazakh territories (Bailey, p.167; Feuer, 1989). In terms nationalism, author sees Valikhanov as a member of colonized Central Eurasians aiming to enhance the interaction of region with Russia (Bailey, p.167) and “fight” for the advancement of national identity (SEP, para.1). And as Valikhanov possessed more acknowledged privileges because of the belonging to the Chinggisid nobility, Bailey (p.167) notes that he served as an “intermediate position of power” between Kazakh people and Russian officials. Understanding how the multiple political worlds are succeeded to be consolidated in one person, Bailey refers to Harry Liebersohn. According to him (Liebersohn, 2006), two polarities of non-native and native are in benefit of each other, as the European travelers (in this case Valikhanov) can advance their careers by investigating remote areas and “satisfying the intellectual curiosity of “indigenous peoples”.