The political and cultural pasts of Kazakhstan are defined by their change. Centuries of shifting power dynamics make questions of identity in the state difficult to answer. Citizens exist in communities imagined around ethnic and geopolitical boundaries which to large extent are imaginary, or at the very least were created with impetuous disregard to what came before. Existing in separate and smaller imagined communities, artisans today strive to reconcile and promote their identity with the evolving demands of Kazakh identity determined by Nazarbayev’s globalizing future. As the end of Nazarbayev’s leadership looms, Kazakhstan’s new age propels toward the branding goal of ‘Kazakhstan 2050’ that his government set out. Interaction of interests demonstrates that branding and artisan both have places in this future. To what extents - and how they will interface as agents - remains to be seen.
In 2017, the Republic of Kazakhstan spent three months in the spotlight. The hosting of World Expo 2017 - Future Energy marked yet another stride in the country’s push for global recognition. It also marked a further concretion of the Kazakh brand, setting the course for how the world would react to that recognition. Expo 2017 represented the selective annexation of artisanship into Kazakhstan’s international message, portraying the state as one honoring the past before. Artisans in turn have spent the last decade
attempting to ingratiate craftwork within that brand on their own terms. My research depicted an artisan class attempting to capitalize on their unique position in Kazakh society to promote their own endgoals of livelihood and popularization. For them, the concept of branding is an economic vehicle for greater exposure to markets. As important for artisans is the use of nation-branding to validate their existence. Acceptance into the international narrative reaffirms the historical continuity maintained and innovated by the crafts they make.
Ultimately, the goals of artisans and nation-branders overlap often but are far from identical. It is apparent from the presentations of traditional culture that heritage holds meaning to both communities. Heritage representation in craftwork splits between those crafts made in likeness and those made in tradition. Large swaths of products take on a symbolic portrait of traditional Kazakhness but deviate from the creation process due to mass production, location of assemblage, or a simple disconnect from the items’ heritage. Other products are formed from the hearts and lineages of Kazakh artisans, creating a subfield of craft in which the act of crafting is an intentional method of strengthening ties to the past. Such operations are designed not only from a place of economy, but from some deeper-seated responsibility to their community - a social obligation, transcendent of time and space.
While the recognition and presentation of cultural heritage is present among those who brand the country, it manifests according to contrasting motivations. Events like Expo 2017 paint the picture of tradition valued as a tool first and foremost. As a facade, traditional artisanship serves the message of the nation which is promoted to international audiences. Though not intentionally dismissive, the result is that in these cases process again falls to the side in favor of appearance. It is in this contrast where the
difficulties in combining mentalities of heritage crafters and national branders lies. Within it also lies potential for melding a bright future between the two entities. Collaboration today manages to be meaningful and mutually-beneficial. Aided by third parties, programs like Sheber and the Astana Art Festival demonstrate that synthesis can occur in a way where both parties emerge improved.
In the larger anthropology academia, my investigation of artisanship contributes to a topic area with less breadth of discussion - production as a form of social obligation. By this, I mean artisanship continued by a sense of responsibility first and foremost, with elements of economics and self-fulfillment contributing but not dominant. Much established artisan academia deals with these questions of smaller identity and economic validity, and while these debates are included in my own work it is primarily as a foundation for comparison with branding ambitions. The central discussion relevant to Kazakhstani artisans themselves regards how the identity created by said artisanship aligns and detours from the identity drawn upon by the branding ambitions of elite and political entities.
Outside of academics, my work also holds value for Kazakhstani artisans themselves. The past decade has been a period of production, education, and revitalization within the craft sphere of
Kazakhstan. A number of national competitions, master classes, and networking support programs have been established, supported by a variety of NGO and private organizations including Chevron and the United Nations Development Programme (Gulbakyt, Zhakhan, Erkinovich and Aytbaevna 2014; Shashayeva et al. 2017). However, advocacy - or simply a voice - in academia is as of yet rare. Contributing to the literature of artisanship with the success of Kazakhstani revitalization could be particularly beneficial given the pervasiveness of academic knowledge within entities set to provide meaningful assistance. Furthermore, Kazakhstan’s situation, either as a recently-independent country or as one disconnected from its past, is not unique in the world. Research such as this, including the
revitalization project and the larger integration of traditional culture into pushes for modernity, may act as a valuable case study and model of success for countries hoping to follow in its footsteps.
The work of this thesis on identity holds value for Kazakhstanis in general. As the 21st century continues on, the world is witnessing for the first time a generation of Kazakhstanis who have only known independence. They have grown up in a country defined by its lack of definition, a homeland struggling
between acts of remembering and repurposing its past. All said, Kazakhstan stands on the precipice of a crossroads: what happens in the next few years in many ways will determine what state it will be for the foreseeable future. This new generation will be that future. This thesis has demonstrated that artisanship exists in the state today as one of the few true anchors of society to the past so often sought to be reclaimed. Simultaneously, the nature of artisanship as a medium for innovation and the telling of new stories marks it as a canvas for painting a new image of Kazakhstan that pays homage to the past, even as it is not forced to be defined by it (Figure 16). It is this reality which, from a personal viewpoint, would serve the Kazakhstani brand best moving forward. The nation-brand, just as with artisanship, can flourish from the ability to retain heritage not as a mold for its identity in the world today, but rather a palette from which elements of culture may be used to create something new. Regardless of direction, the future of Kazakhstan is open. I, for one, eagerly wait to see where that future leads.