Theoretical and Methodological Foundations of the Study of Political Interactions Between the Center and Regions: Integration of “Сenter-Periphery” and “Zomia” Models
https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2019-9-2-81-85
Abstract
This paper investigates the possibility of construction of the complex theoretical model to analyse the processes of integration and distancing of the centre and regions. This model should cover a full range of factors of interaction such as political institutions, ontological views, economic aspect, etc. There is the assumption that ontological representations and symbolic factors are the central determinants mediated the emergence, consolidation and subsequent reproduction of specific political practices. Based on this, it is necessary to use a neo-institutional approach and discourse analysis. The general objective of this paper is to examine the possibility of constructing such model based on the combination of the “Center-periphery” theory advanced by E. Shils and W. Eisenstadt and the concept of “Zomia” offered by J. Scott. The paper analyses the key provisions of these theories, the potential advantages of their combination. The author proposed to use the new model about the abolition of the Tribal Areas under Federal Administration in Pakistan and its integration into the general political space of the state. Based on the results of the study, the author concluded the analytical potential of this model and possible directions of its development.
About the Author
D. R. MukhametovRussian Federation
Student of Faculty of Sociology and Political Science.
Moscow
References
1. Kaspe S. I. Apologia of the Center: On a Forgotten Methodological Resource of Political Science. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. 2005;(1):5-24. (In Russ.).
2. Shils E. Center and periphery: Essays in macrosociology. In: American sociology: perspectives, issues and methods. Osipov G. V., ed. Moscow: Progress; 1972:341-359. (In Russ.).
3. Eisenstadt S. Revolution and the Transformation of Societies. Moscow: Aspect-Press; 1999. (In Russ.).
4. van Schendel W. Geographies of Knowing, Geographies of Ignorance: Jumping Scale in Southeast Asia. Environment and PlanningD: Society and Space. 2002;20(6):647-668.
5. Michaud J. Editorial — Zomia and Beyond. Journal of Global History. 2010;(5):187-214.
6. Scott J. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Moscow: Novoye Izdatel’stvo; 2017. (In Russ.).
7. Mohammed R. Ethnic Nationalism in Pakistan: A case study of Pashtuns. South Asia Case Studies. 2013;3(1):34-51.
8. Deutsch K. Social mobilization and political development. Politicheskaya nauka. 2012;(2):196-226. (In Russ).
9. Sztompka P. Social change as a trauma. Sociologicheskiye issledovaniya. 2001;(1):6-16. (In Russ.).
10. Brubaker R. Ethnicity without groups. Moscow: Izdatel’sky dom Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki; 2012. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Mukhametov D.R. Theoretical and Methodological Foundations of the Study of Political Interactions Between the Center and Regions: Integration of “Сenter-Periphery” and “Zomia” Models. Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2019;9(2):81-85. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2019-9-2-81-85