Contributor, Editor, Supervisor
2,326
edits
Difference between revisions of "Rushyldyq (Kazakhstan)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Editor2018 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{infobox | {{infobox | ||
| nameofpractice =Rushyldyq | |||
| flagemoji = | |||
| definition =Loyalty to and use of extended kinship ties; ‘clanism’ | |||
| location =Kazakhstan | |||
| imagemap =Kazakhstan map.png | |||
| clusters = | |||
}} | [[:Category:Solidarity|Solidarity]] – [[:Category: Normative ambivalence| Normative ambivalence]] – [[:Category: Conformity| Conformity]] – [[:Category: Lock-in effect| Lock-in effect]] – [[:Category: Kinship lock-in| Kinship lock-in]] | ||
| categories = | |||
[[:Category:Kazakhstan|Kazakhstan]] – [[:Category: FSU| FSU]] – [[:Category: Central Asia| Central Asia]] – [[:Category: Community| Community]] – [[:Category: Kinship| Kinship]] – [[:Category: Clan| Clan]] | |||
| authorofpiece =Dana Minbaeva and Maral Muratbekova-Touron | |||
| authorinstitution =Department of Strategy and Innovation, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark and ESCP Europe, Paris, France | |||
| authorwebsite =[https://www.cbs.dk/en/research/departments-and-centres/department-of-strategy-and-innovation/staff/dmsi Profile page at CBS], [https://www.escpeurope.eu/muratbekova-touron-maral Profile page at ESCP]}} | |||
<big>'''By Dana Minbaeva and Maral Muratbekova-Touron, Department of Strategy and Innovation, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark and ESCP Europe, Paris, France'''</big> | |||
[[Category:Solidarity]] | |||
[[Category: Normative ambivalence]] | |||
[[Category: Conformity]] | |||
[[Category: Lock-in effect]] | |||
[[Category: Kinship lock-in]] | |||
[[Category:Kazakhstan]] | |||
[[Category: FSU]] | |||
[[Category: Central Asia]] | |||
[[Category: Community]] | |||
[[Category: Kinship]] | |||
[[Category: Clan]] | |||
[[Category:Entry]] | |||
[[Category: Volume 1]] | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- | |||
|style="font-size:1.1em;"| ''Rushyldyq'' (Cyrillic: ''рушылдық'') is a strong feeling of sub-ethnic identity with and loyalty to one's ''ru'' in Kazakhstan. The word ''rushyldyk'' is derived from the Kazakh term ''ru'', which denotes membership of a particular sub-ethnic group, or clan, united by actual or perceived kinship and descent and inhabiting a shared territory. Traditionally, the Kazakhs have been divided into three ''zhuz'' – Uly Zhuz (Great Zhuz), Orta Zhuz (Middle Zhuz) and Kishi Zhuz (Little Zhuz) – with each ''zhuz'' further subdivided into ''ru'', the number of which varies. Western political scientists refer to the concepts of ''ru'', ''zhuz'' and ''rushyldyq'' as ‘clan’, ‘umbrella clan’ and ‘clanism’ respectively (Schatz 2004<ref>Schatz, E. 2004. Modern clan politics: The power of “blood” in Kazakhstan and beyond. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.</ref>; Collins 2006<ref>Collins, K. 2006. Clan politics and regime transition in Central Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</ref>). ''Rushyldyq'' can also be defined as the use of ''ru'' ties. When discussing ''rushyldyq'', the Russian-language press uses various terms such as tribalism (''traibalizm''), nepotism, patronage, or ‘economy of nephews and sons-in-law.’ | |||
|} | |||
The Kazakhs appeared as a distinct ethnic group in the sixteenth century, and were nomadic up to the twentieth century. During these nomadic times, genealogy was central to group identity. As Schatz explains: ‘After inquiring into the health of one another’s livestock, nomads meeting in the steppe would typically ask, “What clan do you come from?” (''Qai rudan keldiniz?''), or more generically, “What people do you come from?” (''Qai eldensiz?''). The answer was couched by recounting ancestry; genealogical knowledge was thus reiterated with every new interaction and comprised a dense discursive exchange that helped to establish the widely recognized contours of clan at various levels’ (Schatz 2004: 28<ref>Schatz, E. 2004. Modern clan politics: The power of “blood” in Kazakhstan and beyond. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.</ref>). | The Kazakhs appeared as a distinct ethnic group in the sixteenth century, and were nomadic up to the twentieth century. During these nomadic times, genealogy was central to group identity. As Schatz explains: ‘After inquiring into the health of one another’s livestock, nomads meeting in the steppe would typically ask, “What clan do you come from?” (''Qai rudan keldiniz?''), or more generically, “What people do you come from?” (''Qai eldensiz?''). The answer was couched by recounting ancestry; genealogical knowledge was thus reiterated with every new interaction and comprised a dense discursive exchange that helped to establish the widely recognized contours of clan at various levels’ (Schatz 2004: 28<ref>Schatz, E. 2004. Modern clan politics: The power of “blood” in Kazakhstan and beyond. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.</ref>). | ||
| Line 28: | Line 45: | ||
Attitudes towards ''rushyldyq'' are ambiguous even among Kazakhs. Some Kazakhs encourage mutual assistance among kin, maintaining that ''rushyldyq'' defines Kazakhness (''qazaqshylyq'') – that which distinguishes ethnic Kazakhs from other non-titular citizens of Kazakhstan (Russians, Uzbeks, Ukrainians, etc.). Other Kazakhs consider ''rushyldyq'' to be a ‘disease’, and a threat to the unity of Kazakhs as an ethnic group. Non-titular citizens of Kazakhstan and some outsiders typically regard it as abuse of power for the benefit of kin groups. | Attitudes towards ''rushyldyq'' are ambiguous even among Kazakhs. Some Kazakhs encourage mutual assistance among kin, maintaining that ''rushyldyq'' defines Kazakhness (''qazaqshylyq'') – that which distinguishes ethnic Kazakhs from other non-titular citizens of Kazakhstan (Russians, Uzbeks, Ukrainians, etc.). Other Kazakhs consider ''rushyldyq'' to be a ‘disease’, and a threat to the unity of Kazakhs as an ethnic group. Non-titular citizens of Kazakhstan and some outsiders typically regard it as abuse of power for the benefit of kin groups. | ||
To study ''rushyldyq'' (and clanism in Kazakhstan and Central Asia in general), Western political scientists have used intensive and extensive ethnographic methods, interviews and focus group methods (Schatz 2004<ref>Schatz, E. 2004. Modern clan politics: The power of “blood” in Kazakhstan and beyond. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.</ref>; Collins 2006<ref>Collins, K. 2006. Clan politics and regime transition in Central Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</ref>). Minbaeva and Muratbekova-Touron (2013<ref>Minbaeva, D. B. and Muratbekova-Touron, M. 2013. ‘Clanism: Definition and Implications for Human Resource Management’, Management International Review, 53: 109 – 139.</ref>) have developed ‘clanism’ as a management concept and studied its implications for human resource management practices in Kazakhstan. They undertook a qualitative case research method based on several sources: formal interviews with HR managers; informal conversations with Kazakhstani people; and the authors’ own personal experiences as Kazakhstani citizens. Hotho et al. (2013<ref>Hotho, J., Minbaeva, D., Muratbekova-Touron, M., Rabbiosi, L. 2013. ‘Handling Pressures of Community Logic: The Impact of Clan Ties on Recruitment and Selection in Kazakhstan’, conference paper delivered at The Academy of International Business, Istanbul, Turkey, 3-6 July.</ref>) used a vignette experiment to study the effects of clan ties on the recruitment and selection decisions made by managers in Kazakhstan. The scholars asked participants to impersonate a decision maker during a recruitment and selection process based on realistic situational descriptions (the vignettes), which contained the variables of interest. | To study ''rushyldyq'' (and clanism in Kazakhstan and Central Asia in general), Western political scientists have used intensive and extensive ethnographic methods, [[interviews]] and focus group methods (Schatz 2004<ref>Schatz, E. 2004. Modern clan politics: The power of “blood” in Kazakhstan and beyond. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.</ref>; Collins 2006<ref>Collins, K. 2006. Clan politics and regime transition in Central Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</ref>). Minbaeva and Muratbekova-Touron (2013<ref>Minbaeva, D. B. and Muratbekova-Touron, M. 2013. ‘Clanism: Definition and Implications for Human Resource Management’, Management International Review, 53: 109 – 139.</ref>) have developed ‘clanism’ as a management concept and studied its implications for human resource management practices in Kazakhstan. They undertook a qualitative case research method based on several sources: formal interviews with HR managers; informal conversations with Kazakhstani people; and the authors’ own personal experiences as Kazakhstani citizens. Hotho et al. (2013<ref>Hotho, J., Minbaeva, D., Muratbekova-Touron, M., Rabbiosi, L. 2013. ‘Handling Pressures of Community Logic: The Impact of Clan Ties on Recruitment and Selection in Kazakhstan’, conference paper delivered at The Academy of International Business, Istanbul, Turkey, 3-6 July.</ref>) used a vignette experiment to study the effects of clan ties on the recruitment and selection decisions made by managers in Kazakhstan. The scholars asked participants to impersonate a decision maker during a recruitment and selection process based on realistic situational descriptions (the vignettes), which contained the variables of interest. | ||
Ironically, the use of ''rushyldyq'' is crucial for field researchers to gain the required trust from respondents and access to companies for research cases. Kazakhstani people are often apprehensive about participating in management research, particularly when a study touches upon sensitive issues, such as the influence of clan relations. However, they tend to be more comfortable participating if they trust the party conducting the study; in particular if an interviewer is perceived as ''bizdiki'' or ''svoi'' (‘one of ours’ in Kazakh and Russian, respectively). The following quotation from a respondent illustrates the general attitude of Kazakhstani people to interviews: | Ironically, the use of ''rushyldyq'' is crucial for field researchers to gain the required trust from respondents and access to companies for research cases. Kazakhstani people are often apprehensive about participating in management research, particularly when a study touches upon sensitive issues, such as the influence of clan relations. However, they tend to be more comfortable participating if they trust the party conducting the study; in particular if an interviewer is perceived as ''bizdiki'' or ''svoi'' (‘one of ours’ in Kazakh and Russian, respectively). The following quotation from a respondent illustrates the general attitude of Kazakhstani people to interviews: | ||
<blockquote>‘If your friend had not asked me to meet you, I would never have spoken to you. I know that the director of the company values her a lot and trusts her. That’s why I said “yes” [to the interview].’</blockquote> | <blockquote>‘If your friend had not asked me to meet you, I would never have spoken to you. I know that the director of the company values her a lot and trusts her. That’s why I said “yes” [to the interview].’</blockquote> | ||
==References and Bibliography== | ==References and Bibliography== | ||
| Line 40: | Line 55: | ||
# Umbetalieva, T. B. 2001. ‘Yavlenie traibalisma v Kazakhstane’, Kazakhstan-Spektr, 3: 35–46 | # Umbetalieva, T. B. 2001. ‘Yavlenie traibalisma v Kazakhstane’, Kazakhstan-Spektr, 3: 35–46 | ||
== | ==References== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||