Reviews

The author points out the difficulties of explaining Bashkir revolts, peasant colonisation, the nomads’ participation in Pugachev’s movement, or the territorial autonomy obtained in 1919 on the basis of the formational approach that prevails in both Soviet and post-soviet historiography. The civilisational is preferred for explaining why Bashkirs have formed a “closed society” (K. Popper) for escaping the eighteenth-century “forced modernisation”. Comparing Bashkir movements with Cossacks ones, he tries to demonstrate that the Bashkirs’ defence of their traditional society on a regional scale passed through resistance to Europeanisation that, according to Berdin’s Huntingtonian vision of history, constituted a threat to its “identity” as a civilisation.

Larissa A. Yamaeva, Institute for Humanities, Ufa
CER: II-1.2.C-48