According to the author, the purpose of this study is to explain the components of Tatar national identity, in particular the relative importance of its various dimensions – language, culture, tradition, and religion. Her research includes numerous interviews with self-identified Tatar nationalists in Kazan, Saratov, and Moscow, and the book reproduces many of these interviews with extensive quotations that in fact comprise much of its text. Her approach is sociological rather than historical, pushing her to search for models or patterns of nationalism among her subjects.
In her introduction, the author explains that contemporary Tatar nationalism is an ongoing reaction to the economic, social, political, and psychological crises that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union. Khabenskaia argues that the post-Soviet economy allowed a new group of intellectuals to rise from the ranks of the professionals based on their ability and talents, displacing the previous Soviet intellectual group. The new intelligentsia includes scientists, politicians, and the artistic elite, from which Khabenskaia draws her interview subjects. Khabenskaia’s subjects experienced the same Soviet decline, but responded to it in different ways, creating diverse opinions about the nature of Tatar nationalism and the relative importance of its cultural components.
While her conclusion attempts to classify the divergent opinions about Tatar nationalism into several distinct “types,” her material reveals a different division arising from geography – Tatars inside Tatarstan as opposed to those outside. The general consensus of those interviewed from Kazan is that Tatar nationalism must serve an agenda of state-building and eventual independence from Russia. Tatars in Saratov and Moscow believe that Tatar nationalism does not necessarily have a political component, but instead grows from a respect for Tatar traditional culture, including its folklore, language, and religion. Khabenskaia does not address the basic divide between political and cultural nationalists, but her evidence reveals this essential delineation in the ensuing debate about the future of Tatarstan.
In her first chapters, Khabenskaia indirectly reveals her own position in this debate in her assessment of education’s role in developing Tatar nationalism. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Tatars defined their own unique culture in opposition to the dominant Russian culture, which Khabenskaia argues failed to prepare the Tatars for independence from Moscow’s influence. Therefore, a primary education in Tatar is the necessary prerequisite toward embracing “traditional ethnic culture,” which the political nationalists believe will result in their independence. This statement of intent reiterates the conclusion of the “Conception of the Development of Tatar National Education” that Tatarstan’s Ministry of Education adopted in 1991. Furthermore, Khabenskaia’s subjects believe Tatarstan’s nationalist education must extend beyond the region’s boundaries, in order to rebuild the ethnic diaspora of Tatars into a larger, unified community, thereby overcoming differences that have developed among Tatars in Bashkortostan and in the Russian provinces of Nizhegorod and Penza.
The remaining chapters examine the various components of Tatar nationalism and identity and the resulting differences of opinion between Kazan on the one hand, and Moscow and Saratov on the other. All of the Tatars interviewed agree that there is nothing more important for developing future Tatar nationalism than basic education in their language. However, even this consensus creates an overwhelming divide between Tatars in Tatarstan, where the language has official status, and those outside struggling to educate themselves and their children. This is the first of several points of contention, where Tatars in Tatarstan enjoy their superior position and connection to a Tatar identity in comparison with Tatars in the diaspora.
Another debate highlighted in the interviews concerns how different groups value the historical legacy of Tatar culture. Both camps agree that Islam is a necessary part of any Tatar’s self-identification, but they deny that it was a mode of resistance to the Soviet state. Instead, Khabenskaia concludes from her interviews that Islam has a primary place in Tatar identity because of the centuries-old tradition of Muslim culture in the region. Khabenskaia’s interviews indicate that Tatars in Saratov and Moscow embrace most other aspects of their traditional culture, including its folklore, which is attacked specifically by the nationalists in Kazan. Indeed, the nationalists in Kazan deny the importance of all other aspects of Tatar traditional culture, as it contributes little to their struggle for independence. These political nationalists reject a connection to the folklore and traditions of Tatars as an outdated, “emotional” connection to the past. They argue that “actualized” Tatar nationalists must pursue the independence of Tatarstan as their only goal, and an appreciation of Tatar culture distracts from this more important purpose. The conflicting viewpoints between the two sides define the divide between the political nationalists of Tatarstan and the cultural nationalists outside of Tatarstan.
Khabenskaia concludes her study by diagnosing several psychological types of Tatar nationalism. Khabenskaia believes nationalism is a psychological condition, which allows her to pass judgement on those with more “developed” nationalism and suggest paths to improve those who are lacking by “deconstructing” their emotional connection to Tatar culture.
Relying on such conclusions, Khabenskaia is not interested in maintaining scholarly objectivity in her work, as she overtly supports the agenda of the political nationalists in pursuing Tatarstan’s independence from Russia. This limits the utility of the work, as it fails to raise some important questions. Can we comprehend the role of Tatar nationalists in Tatarstan’s independence movement without understanding the views of non-Tatars in Tatarstan? Do Russians, Maris, and Chuvashes support the Tatars’ goal of independence? Similarly, how can we understand the role of education in rebuilding the Tatar community, since Khabenskaia did not include any of the diaspora Tatars of Bashkortostan or Nizhegorod province among her interview subjects?
For historians, another troubling issue of Khabenskaia’s work is her outdated classification of nationalism as a psychological condition, which ignores all contemporary Western scholarship on nationalism and ethnic identity. Recent works on Tatarstan such as Sergei Kondrashov’s “Nationalism and the Drive for Sovereignty in Tatarstan, 1988-92” (2000) or Dmitry P. Gorenburg’s “Minority Ethnic Mobilization in the Russian Federation” (2003) provide a more rigorous analysis of Tatarstan’s nationalist movements. Political scientists and sociologists, however, should not neglect Khabenskaia’s work, as it provides extensive material on self-identified Tatar nationalists’ understanding of their own political struggle, largely in their own words. Many issues of Tatarstan’s potential independence are laid bare. The reaction of the political nationalists to the “emotional” nationalism of those living outside of Tatarstan, for example, suggests a more ominous future for Tatarstan than Khabenskaia hopes. While she praises Tatarstan for its tolerance of diverse cultures and people, it seems Tatars with an appreciation for their own history and culture may not be among them.