| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Differences in the strategies and fates of signification confirm that the blanket label of authoritarianism, if correctly applied to the regimes in Central Asia, covers very different state-society relations and styles of government. Depending on which function type we focus on, symbols can predict regime development-and even, in some authors' views, collapse. With the exception of branding (more referential and often devoid of meaningful content), symbols often convey meaning about domestic self-images and politics that cut-and-thrust political bargaining may not. In each of the five Central Asian politics, they give a sense of the bigger picture, of what the stakes are about, about what aspects of collective identity matter or have ceased to matter. Different regimes of power have produced different regimes (structures and practices) of meaning.
|