Abstract: Most research on ontology security in international relations tends to the nation-centered assumption, but the theoretical paradigm formed based on this assumption cannot fully explain the ontology security problem in Kazakhstan. Based on Giddens 'sociological ontology security theory, this paper analyzes the social relationship nature of ontology security, and points out that Kazakhstan is a typical country in social changes and faces ontology insecurity caused by uncertainty of national identity. The study found that Kazakh society has had a long-term debate on the issue of national identity, but has not fallen into the security trap of national identity issues. The fundamental reason lies in the close interaction and effective dialogue and consultation mechanisms between the state and society. It is this kind of dialogue and consultation that provides flexible space for citizens to safeguard their identity interests and pursue their own security, thereby ensuring the overall stability and rapid development of the country since its independence 30 years ago, making this culture, language, religion and ethnic heterogeneity quite strong. Society can maintain overall harmony and unity even if it does not form a unified collective identity. The construction of a nation-state in Kazakhstan is slowly advancing on the premise of coordinating various identity interests and taking into account the security of all parties. As the internal and external situation changes, whether there will be variables in the future is worthy of continuous observation.
[Keywords] Kazakhstan's Ontology, Security, National Identity, Social Relations, National Construction
In the early 1990s, Kazakhstan was in deep political and economic crisis, and its identity was broken and ideology was confused, causing anxiety in the whole society. Since the complete break with the collective identity of the Soviet Union was completed in a passive and hasty manner, after independence, Kazakhstan, both the country represented by the ruling clique and the general public, were seeking new identities to safeguard their own security: political elites faced the urgent task of unifying ideas, establishing national concepts, consolidating sovereignty, and establishing social order; individuals and social groups needed to gain a sense of belonging by maintaining their original identities or seeking new collective identities to alleviate the anxiety caused by various uncertainties under new conditions. The whole society is full of longing for a new order. Similar to the newly independent republics of the former Soviet Union, Kazakhstan is also trying to provide ontological security for its people by building a new national identity different from the Soviet Union and based on national culture and language as the core. The history of more than 30 years of independence shows that Kazakhstan has chosen a dual, vague, and seemingly contradictory identity policy of coexistence of Kazakh identity and Kazakhstan identity in terms of national identity construction, which has triggered discussions and even doubts.
Why has the Kazakhstan state been allowing the public to engage in a long-term competitive debate around the two national identity narratives of Kazakh nation-state and Kazakhstan nation-state? Why does this seemingly vague identity policy effectively maintain the overall stability of Kazakhstan society and still work? In the eyes of many researchers, the above problems are the biggest obstacle in the current construction of a national state in Kazakhstan. This paper intends to take ontology security as a new path, use constructivism, social relations and other theories to examine and explain the above issues, and reveal the dilemma and coping strategies of Kazakhstan between promoting the construction of a nation-state and regulating the ontology security of social groups.
I. Theoretical Framework
1. Ontology Security: Theoretical Status and Criticism
The concept of ontological security was proposed by psychiatrist R.D. Lane in the 1950s and introduced to sociology by Giddens in the early 1990s. It was originally used to analyze the impact of changes in social structure on personal identity. Giddens emphasized that ontological security is security against the self, that is, security as existence rather than security as survival. It stems from the individual's psychological experience in the process of interaction between people and the environment; ontological security reflects most people's confidence in the continuity of self-identification and the stability of the surrounding social environment. This concept was introduced into the field of international relations at the beginning of the 21st century and was widely used to explain collective behavior (mainly state behavior) in international politics. A large number of excellent research results have emerged, among which the discussion of ontology security theory is very extensive, including the origin and development of ontology security theory, the construction and debate of ontology security theory, and the applicability of this theory to analyze international, regional, national and ethnic security. Judging from the existing literature, this theory has a relatively short history, but it has become an important theoretical tool for academic research on security issues and has strong explanatory power. Many scholars have begun to apply this theory and combine it with specific country cases to conduct security issues. These theoretical and practical studies reveal the behavioral logic of states in global politics and open up multiple paths to combine ontological security with international relations. However, the development of this theory in international politics is far from mature. At present, there is no consensus on the basic connotation of the concept of ontology security. The core differences lie in the two aspects of the reference objects of ontology security and the source of ontology security.
The first disagreement arises around the responsible subjects in ontology security, that is, the issue of who security. A group of scholars represented by Mitzen regard the state as the subject of responsibility for ontology security. This school grafts the personality, psychology, and ontological security needs from Giddens 'theory of ontological security onto the state, making the state personhood in the international community. Different from the theory of national subjectivity by Misen and others, Shinwar, Krolikowski and others believe that noumenon security involves psychological and emotional dimensions, so national noumenon security must ultimately be implemented into human noumenon security and oppose anthropomorphic state.
The second disagreement involves the source of ontology security, that is, whether ontology security or insecurity is based on the outside or inside of the actor or both. Two views have emerged around this issue: external reference theory and internal reference theory. External reference theory regards the external world as the source of national noumenon security, that is, national noumenon security needs to be realized through the recognition and respect of external others, and self-identity can gain meaning only under the reference of the external world and others. This means that the issue of national noumenon security must be discussed in the structure of international relations, which still does not deviate from the agent-structure discussion framework in Giddens sociology. A group of scholars represented by Misen adhere to the theory of external reference. The premise of this analytical perspective is: assume that the country is in a black box state, that is, there is a unified social cognition and stable collective identity within the country, the will of the political elite represents the national consciousness, and the country represents the entire society. The internal reference theory of ontology security emphasizes that ontology security is human security, and the country is the main source of individual ontology security. Although the relationship between the state and the outside world and many others is important, in a postmodern society, stable identity does not come entirely from the outside world, and internal self-reflexivity construction is equally important. Internal reference theory points out that the assumption of only external references downplays the complexity and diversity within a country, ignores differences between the country and society, and excludes investigations into internal social processes that affect the development of identity. There are certain problems and disputes in countries that extrapolate and expand the concept of behavioral theory from the individual level to operate in the international system. Without verification, the rationale for national personality cannot be fully satisfactory, and the assumption of personalizing the state obscures the important impact of the state as an evolving institution on the individual's sense of security. Jeff Jurmans pointed out that there is a paradox in limiting the study of national political identity to the level of the relationship between self and others: the construction and existence of political identity depend on the threat power from others, that is, self-identity needs to be defined by threats from the outside. But at the same time, the ideal goal of security policy is to eliminate threats. According to this logic, if external threats are really eliminated, it means that political identity will be damaged or even collapsed. Therefore, although such research highlights the important role played by self/other (friend/enemy) relationships in building a country's political identity, it only defines a country's identity security from this perspective, exaggerating the importance of threat construction to political identity. Humans cited the European Union as an example and believes that the political identity of EU member states does not only rely on external security threats. On the contrary, it relies to a large extent on internal social and economic projects, with internal markets, European Monetary Union, regional policies and common business policies being key elements.
To sum up, ontology security theory is a product of constructivism. From the perspective of research orientation, some are biased towards systematic theoretical research, and some are limited to the application of concepts. In terms of epistemology, it either describes the norms of actors on the international stage for each other or the environment, or elaborates on the identity production of a country in the domestic political stage. The former is based on the traditional security concept of international politics, that is, limits the subject of ontology security to the national level, and advocates studying ontology security issues within the analytical framework of international relations structure-national subjects. The basic assumption of such research is to regard the state as a single subject with stable internal identity and integrated state and society. The latter is based on a sociological perspective and follows the basic explanatory framework of Giddens 'ontology security theory: changes in social structure have an impact on individuals' self-understanding and sense of survival security. This framework regards people as the subject of noumenon security, and regards the state-society structure as the institutional guarantee for individual noumenon security.
2. The Social Relationship Attribute of Ontology Security
The development status quo of ontology security theory shows that the theory is not yet mature and is in the stage of exploration and improvement, and the academic community has not yet formed a unified understanding of the basic issues of ontology security theory. If a security theory wants to become a theory, it must make its own exposition and explanation of basic theoretical issues in the field of security research. According to the security pedigree proposed by Yu Xiaofeng and others, security theory involves three dimensions: security subject, object level and problem domain. We tend to the views of Buzan, Gandhi Barber, Li Kaisheng and others. Based on Giddens 'sociological ontology security theory, it is believed that ontology security theory from the perspective of social relations can at least answer the following questions: the reference objects of ontology security, the dominant values, the sources of ontology security, and the analytical levels of ontology security research.
First, the reference object of ontology security. The reference object involves two specific issues, the first is the reference of the ontology. The ont- in ontology comes from Greek and means being. To be precise, it refers to social being.ontology deals with the question of social being(the nature of being/existence). Second, the significance of security. Security has two meanings: one is material security or tangible security, and the other is the security of social relations. Taken together,ontological security involves the security of social existence and social relations. Giddens defines ontological security as an agent's confidence in the continuity of its self-identity and the stability of the surrounding social and material environment for action, emphasizing that regularization is crucial to the psychological mechanisms for maintaining ontological security in daily social activities. Regularization here refers to the normalization of social relations. McSweeney believes that ontological security is also called existential trust, which means that actors have basic ability to predict social interactions and have the confidence and practical skills to move forward; ontological security is actually the security of social relations, a cognitive feeling that can control the context of social interactions. Simon emphasized that the reference object of ontology security is not limited to the psychological and emotional level of self-identity, but touches on a more objective and broad social situation where many selves emerge and interact continuously-social arrangements, that is, a structured layout of interactions between actors. Simon Frankel Pratt,A Relational View of Ontological Security in International Relations. Although the focus of the above studies is different, they are all based on the sociology of ontology security, revealing that ontology of ontology security is the social relationship used by subjects to maintain self-identity. The second is the subject of ontology security, that is, the ontology security of who. Buzan pointed out that the country cannot simply be regarded as the subject of security. The subject of security extends downward to individuals and upward to the entire international system. In the study of international relations, ontology security refers to the ontology security of a country. A sociological perspective tends to believe that the subjects of ontology security are individuals and social groups. In other words, the subject of ontology security is uncertain. The ontology security of who depends on the level of the research object.
Second, the dominant value of ontology security. This issue involves which value should be dominant among the many security values of ontology security theory. According to Giddens 'definition, ontological security means that the subject feels that his future is controllable and predictable, is in orderly social relationships and practices, and has confidence in the continuity of self-identity. The psychological origin, sociological development and international political application of the theory of ontology security show that the dominant value of ontology security includes at least two core elements. One is the implicit psychological and emotional value of identity, and the other is the explicit value of social interaction used to maintain identity. Humans emphasized that pursuing ontological security is not about defining and identifying threats, constructing enemies, and managing threats, but about how to arrange social relations to make them orderly, while ensuring the vitality of the order itself. To sum up, the first thing that ontology pursues security is the orderliness of social interactions, which in turn ensures the psychological and emotional needs to maintain self-identity, and ultimately achieves an inner spiritual and psychological sense of order. This sense of order is related to the ultimate meaning and value of the actor's existence in the world.
Third, the source of ontology security-certainty. This issue involves who is responsible for ontology security and how to obtain ontology security. From a sociological perspective, ontological security stems from stable and regular social interactions. Correspondingly, uncertainty in social existence triggers ontology insecurity. McSweeney believes that ontological security stems from safe or trustworthy social relationships. Simon proposes that self-security can only be imagined in the context of lasting social interaction. Zalakor proposed two sources of human security: non-institutional sources and institutional sources. In modern society, the institutional source of personal security is the state. According to Huymans, the state establishes social order, coordinates social relations, and objectifies abstract fear of death by constructing enemies, thus bringing about a certain degree of certainty. This function of the state determines the relationship between it and ontological security. Providing people with ontological security constitutes the reason for the existence of modern nation-states. Society's need for security means that in governance, politicians must provide guarantees to reassure people, and politicians have an obligation to provide definitive answers. Therefore, the state often provides citizens with a sense of belonging and certainty by introducing group identities, and provides institutional guarantees for the security of citizens 'noumenon by establishing social order. For individuals,they need to obtain a complete and stable self-identity by belonging to a country, thereby achieving their own ontology security. On the contrary, once a country loses its unique self-identity, it will threaten the security of its citizens.
Fourth, the analytical level of ontology security research. Ontology security theory has experienced interdisciplinary development from psychology to sociology to international politics, and its research methods and paradigms have also tended to be interdisciplinary integrated. In other words, since the development of ontology security theory today, the one-or single perspective of international relations-state or state-individual does not conform to the historical and realistic objective requirements of the development of this theory, whether from the cognitive level or the disciplinary level. Previous research has proved that this single perspective will always cause controversy and doubts. The interdisciplinary development of ontology security theory means that a country's ontology security issues should be viewed from at least two perspectives: the country's external perspective (international perspective) and the internal perspective. The noumenon security structure of a country contains two basic variables. One is that the country, as a member of the international community, has its national identity and demands for noumenon security interests; the other is that the national identity has self-reference and introversion attributes, which is a product of self-reflexivity, that is, a self-celebration of the nation's identity. These two variables are both related and relatively independent. Interconnection means that for a country, its ontological security is both connected to the external world and related to its own internal reference. Relative independence is manifested in that relatively independent research can be conducted from the perspective of international relations or domestic perspectives. Existing research practice has fully proved that this method is feasible. In other words, ontology security theory itself has no international or domestic attributes, and which analysis level to choose depends on the characteristics of the research object. However, whether at the international relations level or the domestic level, the interaction between subjects and the interaction between subjects and structures are the core of ontology security research.Subject-structure interaction is the basic analytical framework of ontology security.
II. Kazakhstan's Ontology Security Quest: The Applicability of Domestic Social Analysis Levels
The analytical framework of International Relations Structure-State Subject tends to assume the state as a single subject with stable internal identity and a high degree of integration between the state and society. This hypothetical framework is more suitable for explaining national actors with a long history of founding and a clear narrative of national identity, and it must be effective only if national identity does not change with the international situation. There are still many countries in the world that have experienced social and political changes. Their modern founding history is not long and they are still in the process of building a nation-state. They are countries in transition. Therefore, there are often situations where the identity of the country is unclear, and the international relations structure-state subject framework has limited explanatory power on these state behaviors.
When talking about the issue of ontology security in Kazakhstan, we focus on the domestic level, which stems from the special social conditions of Kazakhstan. Giddens believes that ontological insecurity is a condition arising from the structural changes of modern society. Kazakhstan is a typical country in social change. Its social, economic, political and cultural fields are undergoing profound and rapid structural changes, which have a complex impact on individuals 'self-understanding and sense of survival security.
First of all, the major social change of the disintegration of the Soviet Union has caused disorder in Kazakhstan society and interrupted the process of group identity. From the national governance level to the ordinary people, they have fallen into an identity crisis. A crisis situation means that conventions encounter radical and unpredictable mutations and breaks, and the certainty of institutionalized conventions is threatened or destroyed. Crisis situations can disrupt people's self-identity. The disintegration of the Soviet Union was a major ontological security crisis situation, causing the collapse of unified and coherent identities, established practices, and collective memories. The difficult political and economic transformation of Kazakhstan in the 1990s further exacerbated the existential anxiety and social vulnerability of individuals and groups. Moreover, a series of social policies, especially ethnic policies, which tend to the dominant ethnic groups after Kazakhstan's independence have brought many uncertainties to the social status, resource acquisition, religious culture, language environment and political and economic interests of the non-dominant ethnic groups in China. This uncertainty makes the original social interaction mechanism of these groups out of order, and then threatens their own safety.
Secondly, the crux of the construction of Kazakhstan's national and people's identity lies within the country. Kazakhstan has experienced political changes from the former Soviet Union to the Soviet Union and then to the post-Soviet Union. Its social transformation is far from a linear transition from autocracy to democracy or from a closed society to an open society. On the contrary, every social and cultural transformation brought about by regime change is based on the denial of the former. Material symbols such as buildings and monuments have been demolished, and iconic symbols have been erased (such as the renaming of streets); the inheritance of social and cultural experiences, especially values that help social mobilization, build consensus, and consolidate public interests, has been interrupted, historical memory has been broken and social structures have been destroyed.
Kazakhstan has a short history of independent statehood. Its social culture is far from being integrated into a homogeneous national culture, but is characterized by heterogeneity, diversity and fragmentation. From the Arash Movement in the early 20th century, the nationalist trend of thought in the 1980s, to policy changes such as language and immigration after independence, it is not difficult to see that Kazakh political and cultural elites have been working hard to promote the construction of a nation-state based on Kazakh + Kazakh language homogeneous culture. In fact, Kazakhstan has been a place where multiple cultures have collided since ancient times. After independence, it has become a country with a small population base but 140 ethnic groups and more than 17 religious beliefs. According to statistics from the World Language and Ethnography Network, there are 15 languages actively used in Kazakhstan, two of which are institutional languages, 12 languages are dynamic for development, and 32 languages whose specific status is unknown but are still widely used. There are many ethnic cultural centers in Kazakhstan, such as the Kazakh Language Association, the World Kazakh Association, the Russian Community, the Russian Alliance, the Russian Harmony National Cultural Center, the Slavic Root Line Cultural Education Association, the Tatar Cultural Center, the German Council, the Chechen and Ingushetia Our People National Cultural Development Association, the Romania and Moldovan Associations, etc. Kazakhstan is located at the intersection of the European Christian Latin-Cyrillic cultural circle, the Islamic Arab-Persian cultural circle in the Middle East, and the Central Plains-Han cultural circle in East Asia. Its cultural diversity is reflected in its European, Turkic, Islamic, and CIS identity. Kazakhstan scholars claim that the heterogeneity of Kazakh society stems from the heterogeneity of culture and language, that is, not one language, but two or more languages, which plays a major role in Kazakh society, specifically expressed in Kazakh and Russian. Kazakhstan society is divided into three sub-linguistic groups-Russian-speaking Kazakhs, Kazakhs-speaking Russians and other ethnic minorities. Social culture presents two types of heterogeneity. One is that the entire society is divided into a heterogeneous culture in which Russian and Kazakh coexist, with Russian dominant; the other is that the Kazakh people are divided into two subgroups: Russian-speaking Kazakhs and Kazakhs. Most Russian speakers are urban residents, and most Kazakh speakers are rural residents. Differences in cultural and linguistic identities have created alienation and estrangement between the two Kazakh sub-groups, forming a stable border between the two. The cultural and language policies with a Kazakh tendency introduced after Kazakhstan's independence and urbanized immigration failed to break this boundary. On the contrary, modernization transformation has accelerated the social stratification of the two groups and exacerbated inequality between them. The Kazakh people are divided into multiple classes. The polarization between the upper and upper middle classes(10%) and the middle and lower middle classes(i.e., the majority of middle-income wage earners, accounting for 55%) is intensifying. A small number of extremely rich classes(3%) have benefited the most from globalization, are highly Westernized, and are gradually separated from the middle, middle and lower classes that account for the majority of the population. The division of Kazakh people in terms of cultural and linguistic identity has made their internal integration extremely complex. This differentiation makes it difficult for Kazakh language and culture to shoulder the important task of uniting the entire society of Kazakhstan and building a multi-ethnic cultural unity in a short period of time.
There are obvious ethnic and regional differences in the cultural and linguistic identity of the people of Kazakhstan. According to the 2021 social survey, 70.4% of respondents agree that Russian dominates society, including 66.7% of Kazakhs (the proportion of the total number of Kazakhs participating in the survey, the same below). 66.7% of the respondents believe that Kazakhstan-Russian bilingualism is Kazakhstan's correct language policy, of which 59.2% agree with this view. Russians and other ethnic minorities strongly support bilingualism, while more than half of Kazakhs share the same language attitude. In terms of language identity, 69.3% of respondents believe that Russian is important in all social areas, of which 62.6% agree with Kazakhs, 90.1% and 90.9% are Russians and other non-indigenous people. Russian identity also reflects differences between urban and rural areas and regions. Large cities and northern and eastern regions such as Almaty (80.0%), Kostane (78.7%), Oskmen (76.9%), Aktobe (75.4%), Astana (75.3%) and Chimkent (75.3%) have high Russian identity, while Kazakh inhabited areas such as Kyzylorda (60.7%) and especially Atyrau (32.0%) have low Russian identity. Nationally, 84.3% of respondents agreed that Kazakh is important in all areas of social life. Among them, 64.1% are Russians and 78.8% are Kazakhs. The results of the survey show that, firstly, the heterogeneity of Kazakhstan's social culture and language has obvious ethnic and regional differences; secondly, the dual identity of Kazakh and Russian indicates that the mainstream culture of Kazakhstan is still a heterogeneous culture, and this characteristic is recognized by most Kazakhs.
Moreover, since Kazakhstan's independence, the core issue that has plagued the construction of its group identity has been the relationship between Kazakhness(unity/homogeneity) and Kazakhstan stanness(diversity/heterogeneity). This issue belongs to the self-referencing and introverted nature of national identity. Kazakh people hold different views on the cultural basis of national identity. Russian-speaking social groups (including Kazakhs) believe that the Kazakh-Russian foreign culture is the cultural foundation for the construction of Kazakhstan's nation-state. Even if it is not based on the cultural and linguistic identity of a core ethnic group and does not integrate the multi-ethnic population into a core ethnic group, a nation-state can be established, while the Kazakh language group supports the Kazakhization of the nation-state. The above differences are contrary to the modern nation-state construction model based on the homogeneous culture of main nation + main national language.
Kazakhstan scholars pointed out that most Kazakhstan people have solved basic material survival problems, and there is an increasing need for a meaningful existence and a future prospect. The Kazakhstan-2030 strategy emphasizes that Kazakhstan's self-identity formation takes time and must be advanced in history. The Soviet Union did not form the identity of a 'unified Soviet people' in 70 years, and many post-colonial multi-ethnic countries still did not solve this problem decades after independence. It will also take decades for Kazakhstan to develop this sense of identity. If you use 'Who are we?' To define the national identity of modern Kazakhstan, then there is no common, consistent answer that is accepted by all citizens. From the perspective of ontology security, this means that there is no consensus between the state and society on the narrative of national identity, and the state's ability to provide ontology security to the people at the institutional level is insufficient. On the contrary, the public lacks sufficient confidence in the future of the country and the development future of individuals, and it is easy to develop a sense of ontology insecurity. The legitimacy of the state ultimately depends on its ability to provide social order and its function of making life clear. National identity first requires a general consensus at the national and public levels in order to form the foundation of state-society-individual security. In Kazakhstan, this consensus around group identity has not yet been finally formed.
According to social surveys, 80% of Kazakhstan people were confident about the future in 2015, but by 2022, this proportion will drop to 54.2%. In 2015, 78.5% of citizens were clear about the country's development direction, but by 2022, it will drop to 46.8%. It can be said that uncertainty is a typical feature of Kazakhstan society.
Based on a sociological perspective, we define Kazakhstan's current ontology insecurity as: the insecurity caused by the unclear collective identity faced by Kazakhstan, society and the public and the uncertain direction of national development, which is undergoing social structural changes. Rather than the ontology security threat faced by Kazakhstan, as an international actor, in the international community. In order to make the objects of analysis more controllable, we set the analysis level at the level of state-public space-social group to discuss the interaction between the state, society and the public in the pursuit of ontology security in Kazakhstan undergoing changes in social structure. Compared with the study of ontology security in international relations, this study inherits the previous research's attention to domestic and individual countries, especially the study of the mutual reflexivity of state and society in ontology security research, but focuses the analysis on the consultation and mutual assistance relationship between state and society, and the public in the pursuit of ontology security. It is this kind of consultation and mutual assistance that has ensured the overall stability and rapid development of Kazakhstan since its independence, ensured the overall harmony and unity of this society with strong cultural, language, religion and ethnic heterogeneity, and reflected the uniqueness of Kazakhstan's current political culture. From this point of view, Kazakhstan is a suitable research object for ontology security from within the country.
To sum up, Kazakhstan's noumenal security search from the perspective of social relations refers to: at a specific historical juncture in nation-state construction and social transformation, Kazakhstan's state, individuals and social groups promote the concept of inter-subject competition about common history, culture, values and responsibilities within the state-society space, intended to write a specific national identity narrative, so that this narrative can successfully replace other narratives and become a national identity narrative of Kazakhstan. In this process, interactions and exchanges between different ethnic groups and cultures have gained more trust. From a realistic perspective, this specific identity is often proposed by the state and reached through constant debate and reflection by members of the state and society. In this process, the Kazakhstan state coordinates and balances the identity interests of different social groups and builds social order by adjusting identity discourse, improving cultural policies, and building national historical narratives. Orderly social interactions, inter-subject reflexivity and subject self-reflexivity in interactions allow the identity needs of different social actors to be respected and recognized, and the social interaction to maintain their identities is institutionally guaranteed; the state also obtains the legitimacy of the regime by providing the people with ontological security.
III. The Social Debate around National Identity
The internal reference to ontology security involves mutual reflexivity between subjects and subject self-reflexivity around identity. The mutual reflexivity between the state and society means that all sectors of society express their opinions and discuss different versions of collective identity. While the state is embedded in society, it allows society to hold a certain ideological freedom space and allows various narratives to debate and compete with each other, thereby shaping the public's universal understanding of all types of others and giving different social actors the opportunity to express and consolidate their identities without undermining social order and national stability. On the contrary, if the mutual reflexivity of the state and society is lacking, social debates surrounding the collective narrative may get out of control due to the lack of state governance, which may lead to the inconsistency and fragmentation of the collective narrative, form contradictory perceptions of the other, and trigger noumenal insecurity in the country and society as a whole, and may also prompt political elites to move towards the security of their collective identity. The security of collective identity means that the state dominates society and imposes its own identity narrative imagination and perception of others on society through coercive means, thereby weakening mutual reflexivity and creating a sense of ontology insecurity.
The uncertainty of Kazakhstan's national identity has prompted political elites, elites of all ethnic groups, and the general public to participate extensively in public discussions around national identity, the most important collective identity narrative.
As a nation-state under construction, Kazakhstan's uncertainty about its national identity has been a core issue that has plagued political elites and all people since independence. Is it a Kazakh country or a Kazakhstan country? It has always been an unresolved problem. To this end, Kazakhstan has launched a long debate that has produced a variety of competitive identity imaginations and their designers-the state (political elite), the Kazakh elite, the Russians and other Russian-speaking ethnic elites. Among them, discussions at the social level revolved around two national identity plans-Kazakh nation or Kazakhstani nation and the corresponding two personal identities-Kazak or Kazakhstani.
Kazakh identity highlights the Kazakh cultural and linguistic foundation of national identity, advocates taking the Kazakh nation's history, culture, and language as the core of national identity, and excludes Russian-Soviet culture from national identity. It believes that the Kazakh nation is the nation that builds the country. Kazakh people's values take precedence over the values of other nations. The number of Kazakhs currently exceeds two-thirds of the total population, so Kazakhstan can be regarded as a mono-ethnic state. Kazakhstan was a concept invented by the Soviet Union and a compromise plan adopted to calm ethnic problems, which did not disappear because of the emergence of this new concept.
Kazakhstan Identity emphasizes the political institutional meaning and citizenship of national identity, does not involve ethnic or ethnic connotations, and tends to accommodate the Russian and Soviet language and culture, and takes care of the interests and demands of Russians and other ethnic groups that have been Russianized in Kazakhstan. He believes that introducing the concept of Kazakh nation simplifies and ignores the real situation of Kazakhstan society. Ethnic and linguistic divisions in Kazakhstan are very serious. Kazakh and Russian are the languages of the two largest ethnic groups. Therefore, Russian, as the second national language, will not cause harm to anyone, and ethnic problems will be solved just like Canada. Kazakh political scientist Suldangaliyev believes that pursuing a single Kazakh society is a utopian idea. Using people as a means to Kazakh national identity belongs to the ultra-leftist nationalism. It not only fails to objectively reflect the social reality of Kazakhstan, but will also cause serious consequences at the moral, ethical and political levels. The Kazization of national identity cannot solve the potential separatism in Kazakhstan society, because the real separatism sentiment lies within the Kazakh people, conflicts often occur between influential Kazakh tribal groups, and other ethnic groups in fact cannot have a decisive influence. Separatism is actually part of the heart of the Kazakh nation. It originates from the special origin of the nation, the traditional Kazakh social structure and the historical foundation of the establishment of the Kazakh Khanate. Kazakhs have always classified relatives, ethnic groups, and members of their Yuz as close people and distanced themselves psychologically from other Kazakhs. Kazakhstanization is an offense to other ethnic groups. Replacing the concept of Kazakhstan that expresses citizenship and legal affiliation with the concept of ethnic group Kazakh will complicate ethnic relations and deteriorate the domestic political situation. The Donbas conflict may play out in Kazakhstan.
In addition to elite-level debates, people also hold two views on national identity. Social surveys show that Russians and other Russian-speaking non-Kazakhs, as well as a considerable number of Russian-speaking Kazakhs, generally believe that a nation-state can be established even if a certain ethnic group and its language are not the core. Kazakh people who speak Kazakh advocate that the construction of a national state in Kazakhstan must focus on Kazakh culture and Kazakh language.
The Kazakhness or Kazakhstanness of national identity also touches on another important issue, which is the question of what Kazakhstan should choose to base its culture when building a nation-state. Cultural foundation is the root support of national identity narrative. Kazakh scholar Kadrzhanov pointed out that the cultural foundation of national construction refers to the way of interpersonal interaction in a specific society and the form of uniting people into a nation. The most important ones are language, culture, history, education, etc.
From the discussions among Kazakhstan's political elites, cultural elites and the public, we can find that at least the following cultural forms, values, ideologies, etc. can constitute the cultural foundation for the construction of a national state in Kazakhstan. The first is language. Kadrzhanov believes that the cultural foundation of the construction of a national state in Kazakhstan is language, specifically a heterogeneous culture in which Kazakh and Russian coexist. The Kazakhstan-2050 strategy points out that the Kazakh language is the core of the cohesion of the developing Kazakh civil society. The second is the values of multicultural coexistence. This view holds that Kazakhstan is a multi-ethnic country and a multicultural community, and diverse models are the only choice for national development. Kazakh scholar Sartaeva emphasized that this diverse model is not a simple mixture, but a polyphony of different ethnic cultures on Kazakhstan's territory. It is a coordinated voice and a dialogue in which every culture can be heard. Sartaeva, Aji, Buskov, Gambarova and others advocated exploring the cultural commonalities of the two major ethnic groups, Kazakh and Russian, in order to cultivate a common foundation for the new independent Kazakhstan society and culture. The third is Eurasia. The Kazakhstan-2030 strategy emphasizes that Kazakhstan is a Eurasian country with its own history and future, and there is no question of choosing the Western path or the Eastern path. In other words, Kazakhstan should explore original cultural identity and development paths. Nazarbayev is a representative figure of Eurasia in Kazakhstan. Different from Russian Eurasia, Kazakhstan has vertically defined Eurasian space, that is, Eurasian space refers to the geopolitical belt starting from Russia in the north and ending in India in the south, with Kazakhstan located in its center. Kazakh scholar Sagatova and others pointed out that Kazakhstan is among the first country to realize its Eurasian identity. Kazakhstan Eurasia is intended to prevent the post-Soviet space from being divided into cultural fragments such as Orthodox culture, Catholic culture and Muslim culture, and to prevent the Eurasian continent where Kazakhstan is located from being described as a broken zone of civilization. From the perspective of Eurasia in Kazakhstan, although there are differences, Kazakhs, Russians and other ethnic groups in Kazakhstan all belong to the internally unified Eurasian space. The fourth is nationalism. It includes two forms: Kazakh nationalism and Kazakhstan citizen nationalism. Modern Kazakh nationalism originated from the Arash Movement in the early 20th century and flourished as a political ideology in the 1980s. There are three propositions within it. The first is liberal nationalism, which supports Western liberal values and advocates building civil society with Kazakh nationalism as the leading ideology. It is represented by social and political activists such as Sarem, and most of its supporters are educated Kazakh youth. The second is the traditionalist faction, which advocates building a society dominated by Kazakh traditional values and Kazakh traditional cultural identity. The main group is Kazakh intellectuals such as Shakhanov who were active in the Soviet period, and the supporters are mostly rural Kazakh youth and Kazakh returnees. The third is the religious faction, which advocates using Islamic values to unify Kazakhs. Its activity space is mainly on the Internet and Social networks, represented by Treuhan, and its supporters come from all walks of life. Kazakhstan citizen nationalism refers to the recognition of Kazakhstan state and advocates that people with Kazakhstan national citizenship form a common community. Citizen nationalism in Kazakhstan upholds the values of multicultural coexistence, puts law, democratic system construction, and social well-being first in national construction, achieves fairness and justice in the whole society, and safeguards the interests of citizens. All citizens with Kazakhstan nationality are Kazakhstan regardless of ethnicity, race, religion, occupation, gender, age, etc. Nazarbayev emphasized that citizenship means that all citizens of a country live under the same constitution and other laws and are bound by these laws; for Kazakhstan, the most important thing is citizenship.
VI. Coordination and Intervention of the State: Balancing Social Relations and Ensuring Ontology Security
Kazakhstan attaches great importance to interaction and dialogue between the state and society. Nazarbayev pointed out that social harmony and peace in Kazakhstan are related to the country's development plan. Tokayev proposed the concept of listening state. Its main purpose is that constructive public dialogue is the foundation for Kazakhstan's stability and prosperity, and the government must establish a regular dialogue mechanism between the state and society. Public dialogue, openness and rapid and effective responses to people's needs are top priorities for national authorities. Social harmony in Kazakhstan cannot be maintained by human means, but must be achieved through the participation of society itself and through the interaction of the state and citizen institutions. Kazakhstan must launch strategic balanced policies at the national level to deal with inter-ethnic relations. Kazakhstan will hold a referendum on constitutional amendments in 2022, aiming to further promote the modernization and reform of the political system. Tokayev pointed out that Kazakhstan is transitioning to a new national model, a new form of interaction between the state and society.
1. While society debates national identity, official discourse constantly adjusts identity expressions to coordinate social dialogue at different stages
This adjustment avoids the intensification of the conflict between the two competing narratives of Kazakh identity and Kazakhstan identity; the second is to explore intermediate solutions to maintain a dynamic balance between the two and achieve recognition by the whole society.
Before the mid-1990s, the Kazakh nation was written into the declaration of national sovereignty and constitutional laws. After the mid-1990s, Kazakhstan's official narrative shifted to the use of people of Kazakhstan, and the Kazakh nation gradually withdrew from the official discourse. For example, the 1993 Constitution states that the Republic of Kazakhstan is the embodiment of the will of the Kazakh people. The 1995 Constitution changed the will of the Kazakh people to the will of Kazakhstan citizens. This change shows that Kazakhstan is now a country of all ethnic groups in its territory. In fact, it was from the mid-1990s that Kazakh society began to have public discussions around Kazakhstan nation and Kazakhstan people. The Theory of National Unity in Kazakhstan was promulgated in 2009, which was an open and clear proposal by the Kazakh government on national identity. Contrary to the country's expectations, the reference to Kazakhstan nation has aroused strong opposition from some social groups, believing that the proposal does not clearly define the special role of the Kazakh ethnic group, and there is a potential threat of ethnic minorities being assimilated. In the same year, the opposition party Bright Road launched the Concept for a New Ethnic Policy of the Republic of Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2020 to respond to and criticize the Theory of National Unity of Kazakhstan. It points out that without the value of the nation state, the future of the country will be worrying. The Kazakh people are the core ethnic group that constitutes the nation state. The Kazakh language and cultural values should be given priority to promote the modernization process of the Kazakh people, improve the cohesion of the Kazakh people in Kazakhstan society, and at the same time create conditions for the development of other ethnic cultures. Since then, the Kazakhstan nation has been quietly removed from official discourse.
After years of public discussion and national coordination, the connotation of Kazakhstan's national identity has the dual characteristics of Kazakh nature and Kazakhstan nature, that is, ethnic nature and citizenship. This means that Kazakhstan, as a country, has Kazakh culture and language as its core and represents the national sovereignty of the Kazakh people. It also represents that Kazakhstan is a unified civil and political community. After several adjustments, the government currently uses the expression people of Kazakhstan to replace Kazakh nation and Kazakhstan nation, deliberately downplaying the ethnic color in the discourse of national identity. The new constitution in 2022 uses people of Kazakhstan and citizens to refer collectively to all Kazakhstan citizens of different ethnic groups and religious beliefs in the country. To sum up, the narrative of Kazakhstan's national identity evolves through continuous interaction and mutual reflexivity between the country and society. While launching identity narratives, the country actively participates in discussions in social public spaces, adjusts identity discourse in a timely manner, and strives to maintain a dynamic balance between multiple competitive identity narratives.
2. Build cultural order through institutional construction, integrate diverse cultural identities, and build a cultural community
After independence, Kazakhstan's national development strategy (《Kazakhstan-2030,》《Kazakhstan-2050》) and cultural policy can be found that Kazakh language, harmonious coexistence of multiculturalism, Eurasia, civic nationalism and other ideas run through it. By unifying ideas, promoting the construction of laws and institutional mechanisms, and integrating the diverse ideologies of Kazakhstan society, Kazakhstan has made the above ideas the core elements of the cultural identity of the nation state of Kazakhstan.
First, launch a diverse and unified cultural narrative, build the value principles of harmonious coexistence in a multi-ethnic society in Kazakhstan, and lay the general tone for Kazakhstan's national cultural development. Kazakhstan-2050 points out that Kazakhstan is the common home of 140 ethnic groups and 17 religions, and different cultures complement and nourish each other. Peace among citizens and harmony among nations are the mainstream values of Kazakhstan society. Kazakhstan people must learn to live in a social environment where multiple cultures and religions coexist and promote dialogue among civilizations.. Nazarbayev pointed out that Kazakhstan should become a country where every citizen feels comfortable. Tokayev once again emphasized in his 2019 State of the Union address that the unity of a nation lies in its diversity. Diversity means that Kazakhstan is a country with multiple ethnic groups, multiple languages, cultures and religious beliefs. Unity means that all ethnic groups, languages, cultures and religious beliefs in Kazakhstan coexist harmoniously, share the same political system and the same citizenship, and jointly build a community with a shared future for the people of Kazakhstan. The principle of unity of diversity has been written into the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of Kazakhstan, and runs through ethnic policies, cultural policies and a series of laws and regulations. Kazakhstan prohibits any act that undermines national unity and social harmony. The Constitution stipulates that the cultural traditions of all ethnic groups living in the country must be protected and promoted. Kazakhstan's criminal law strictly prohibits racial discrimination and severely punishes speeches and behaviors that incite ethnic conflicts.
Second, strengthen the construction of laws and systems in the cultural field to achieve fairness and justice in the whole society. After independence, Kazakhstan issued a series of laws, regulations and national outlines focusing on cultural construction. In 2003, the Cultural Heritage National Cultural Construction Outline was launched, with the goal of establishing a system for studying the cultural heritage of the Kazakhstan people. In 2006, the Culture Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan was promulgated, defining culture as a set of cultural values (cultural treasures) aimed at achieving harmonious personal development, cultivating patriotism, and meeting the aesthetic needs and interests of Kazakhstan citizens. The law defines the characteristics of Kazakhstan culture from three levels: first, culture is the culture of the people of Kazakhstan and is jointly built and shared by all citizens; second, it emphasizes the educational function of culture-to achieve harmonious development of individuals and cultivate patriotism; third, it highlights the value goal of culture-to achieve inherent harmony and unity between individuals and the country. In other words, Kazakhstan culture emphasizes the combination of citizenship and patriotism, the unity of personal development and the destiny of the country, and upholds the values of tolerance, openness, and eclecticism. In 2014, Kazakhstan launched the Cultural Policy Concept of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which is based on concepts such as eternal country and spiritual civilization rejuvenation to protect the rich cultural heritage of the Kazakhstan people, develop and create potential, and achieve the goal of entering the top 30 developed countries in the world.
Third, establish an institutional mechanism to coordinate multicultural relations-the Assembly of People of Kazakhstan Kazakhstan. The institution was established in 1995 and its predecessor was the People's Forum of Kazakhstan. The purpose of the National Accord Conference is to listen to the voice of everyone and every nation and inherit the friendship of the people of Kazakhstan people of all generations. The 2007 constitutional amendment improved the legal status of the National Accord Congress and expanded the agency's power to participate in and discuss politics, allowing nine ethnic minority representatives to enter Majlis, the lower house of parliament. From a legal perspective, the Kazakhstan National Accord Conference has the nature of a consultative body and assumes the responsibility of promoting harmony among ethnic relations in the process of building Kazakhstan citizens. The National Accord Conference is regarded as the most important policy tool for handling multi-ethnic relations and embodies the Kazakhstan model of multiculturalism. The agency aims to promote ethnic integration, bring each other closer, overcome stereotypes, and create a unified nation of citizens that all ethnic groups feel comfortable.
In addition, formulate and implement a depoliticize policy for ethnic movements. In view of the possible low level of people's political culture and underdeveloped democracy and civic values, ethnic mobilization may occur, which may have potentially damaging consequences. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of ethnic-based political parties and restricts nationalist movements and political activities of ethnic elites. In short, through institutional mechanisms, the state separates ethnic groups and ethnic relations from the field of political ideology and includes them in the scope of cultural governance, which is specially coordinated by the National Accord Congress and its subordinate ethnic cultural centers.
3. Reshaping collective memory, unifying historical narratives, and providing historical basis for national identity
Kazakhstan's independence has made understanding of the continuous 'self' a reality. In the long river of history, not only the Kazakh people, but also all Kazakhstan people, can they adapt to the times and not fall into historical nihilism only by understanding the national I of the past, present and future nations. Historical narrative is the source and basis for the formation of modern Kazakhstan's national identity. After Kazakhstan became independent, the following paths were mainly adopted to write the country's history.
First of all, establish a new view of the history of the Kazakhstan nation. The newly established country must establish its own historical 'national view' model as a measure of the value of its own history.It is necessary to cultivate a historical view used to build a nation... The whole of Kazakhstan recognizes that 'must become the core of the people's view of history. Newly independent Kazakhstan has implemented a historical outlook training mechanism in which the state and political elites take the lead, the history community and the public participate extensively in discussions, and the education system puts it into practice. Kazakhstan's new view of history emphasizes:(1) Kazakhstan has a long history of national character. Political elites such as Nazarbayev and Tokayev particularly emphasized the history of national character in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is the historical residence of the Serbs, Kangju, Sarmat, Xiongnu, and Turkic tribes. The Turkic Khanate, Golden Horde Khanate, Kazakh Khanate and other state regimes were established on the land of Kazakhstan. Among them, the Turkic Khanate is the historical cradle of all Turkic nations. (2)National institutional systems are not the only way to inherit culture and preserve historical memories. Before the 20th century, Kazakhs lived in a nomadic society. The structure of nomadic society and its social relationships have unique ways of preserving history and inheriting culture, such as the Kazakh tradition of seven generations of ancestors. Whether or not the shell of the country exists, the complete culture and spirit of the Kazakh people have been preserved and passed down. (3)The most important function of history is to promote inter-ethnic harmony in Kazakhstan and unify the people of all ethnic groups in Kazakhstan within the framework of their identity as the people of Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is a country with a unified future and Kazakhstan people are building a common history, culture and language.
Second, reshape collective memory. Both generations of Kazakhstan leaders have emphasized the importance of reshaping historical memories and strengthening historical awareness. Only on the basis of a new interpretation of our own history can it be possible to form the idea of a Kazakhstan nation-state. We must learn from history and rethink history. A deep sense of history is not the privilege of professional historians, but something that everyone should have, especially young people. Based on a new national historical view, Kazakhstan re-reflects two types of historical events and writes two types of collective memories. One is heroic memory and the other is suffering memory. The heroic memory is reflected in the history of the struggle of the Kazakhstan people for independence. The anti-colonial struggle of the 18th and 19th centuries, the democratic movement of Kazakh intellectuals in the early 20th century, the Central Asian National Liberation Struggle in 1916, the Arash Movement after the October Revolution, the Anti-Fascist War, the December Incident of 1986, Historical events such as the denuclearization movement in the early 1990s and the relocation of the capital in 1997 constitute the history of the struggle of the Kazakhstan people for liberation and the establishment of the country, and the struggle history of the independent development of a sovereign country. Suffering memories include the history of being colonized and enslaved, such as the Great Famine of 1921 - 1922, and the political persecution of the 1930s. Nazarbayev pointed out that preserving suffering memories is the moral responsibility of every Kazakhstan person and helps people reflect on the reasons for Kazakhstan's social and economic backwardness and the need to accelerate social reforms. Memory of suffering is a warning for the future and means a complete break with the legacy of the old system.
Finally, unify the historical narrative. Historical narrative refers to what kind of historical view to use, what kind of value stance is based on, and from which angles to narrate and depict history, and on this basis form a broad, long-term, and self-consistent historical evolution picture. Historical narrative aims to form a solid, self-consistent, emotionally based political and cultural identity. Based on a new national historical view, Kazakhstan is building such a historical narrative: the history of Kazakhstan is a history of the Kazakhstan people resisting foreign invasions, striving for national liberation, and winning national independence and development. The destiny of our people has always been permeated by the quest for independence. Kazakhstan's independence is not 'written' on a piece of white paper, but has an ancient tradition. The birth and development of our motherland clearly confirm the fact that the people of Kazakhstan have waged difficult and cruel battles in history in the name of future generations in order to safeguard their national status.
Conclusion
Ontology security is an important part of the national security system, and Ontology security needs to be constructed and maintained. For Kazakhstan, which is in a period of social transformation, internal factors of the country are key variables of ontology security and deserve special attention.
The issue of national security is the core factor restricting the current construction of a nation-state in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan has tried to promote the construction of a modern nation-state based on Kazakh homogeneous culture, but strong social heterogeneity requires that the ontology security interests from various heterogeneous cultural groups must be taken into account. The state plays the role of coordinator and balancer in this process and needs to deal with at least three sets of social relations. The first is the balance between multicultural identities, especially the relationship between Kazakh cultural language and Russian cultural language; the second is the balance between ethnic historical narratives and national historical narratives, which involves how Kazakh history and culture are integrated into Kazakhstan's national historical narrative; the third is the balance between Kazakh ethnic identity and Kazakh citizen identity in national identity. Therefore, the current construction of Kazakhstan's national identity is slowly advancing in the process of coordinating the identity interests of all parties.
Kazakhstan's vague identity policy is precisely to balance social relations and build social order. This artificial ambiguity and uncertainty is a strategic choice for the Kazakhstan state, intended to avoid social conflicts. On the one hand, this ambiguity allows members of society to debate freely on national identity issues, and on the other hand, allows members of society to develop and maintain their own cultural identities and seek ontology security, thus greatly enhancing Kazakhstan's social resilience and bringing The overall harmony and stability of the country. After more than 30 years of development, the essential characteristics of diversity and heterogeneity of Kazakhstan society, culture, language and beliefs have not been fundamentally reversed. However, the people have shown a high identification of Kazakhstan State and their awareness of citizenship has been greatly enhanced. In the pursuit of ontology security, Kazakhstan has formed a joint construction, mutual construction and mutual assistance relationship between the state and society.
Kazakhstan has not made the issue of national identity safe. It can be seen in two points: first, discussions around national identity have always been within a controllable and orderly range and have not risen to the national security agenda; second, the state has created policy and legal space for citizens to maintain their self-identity. Kazakhstan has not adopted a tough pursuit of a certain identity, nor has the government ruled right and wrong on various competitive identity narratives. Instead, while launching a national identity vision, it takes building social order and promoting harmony in social relations as the primary principle. It adopts relatively soft and gentle policies and policies, consults and dialogues with society, and jointly promotes the construction of national identity.
In the research on ontology security in Kazakhstan, there are still two issues that need to be further discussed.
The first is the real identity of the current people of Kazakhstan. Social surveys show that the motives for language identification of the people of Kazakhstan are very complex, especially since many ethnic minority groups are worried about their own survival security. The direction of Tokayev's ethnic policy after taking office is still unclear. Therefore, there is a view that it is for this reason that non-Kazakhs support Kazakhstan identity as a protective shell against assimilation or exclusion. In other words,Kazakhstan identity is likely to be a strategy for these groups to continue and develop their own ethnic identity and gain physical security. Non-Kazakh people in a relatively weak position do not show confrontational behavior, but a desire to be accepted and equal rights. Therefore, in social relations, they may adopt Performing Deference. For another example, social surveys cannot identify the true national identities of two Kazakh groups with different language identities. All Kazakhs say that Kazakh is their mother tongue, that Kazakh is used in communication, and Kazakh is important. In fact, the concept of Russian's modern advantages over Kazakh is deeply rooted in their minds, and this importance is not enough to make these social groups change their language behavior.
The second issue is the external dimension of the security construction of Kazakhstan's ontology. As mentioned above, a country's ontology security includes two reference dimensions: foreign and domestic. Kazakhstan-2030 and Kazakhstan-2050 emphasize that the future security issue will not be direct military invasion and loss of national integrity. Kazakhstan must build and rely on an intensive network of mutually beneficial relations to ensure its own security, and never allow itself to rely solely on its relationship with a certain country and rely on only one country. Kazakhstan had neither material strength nor national spiritual support to pursue influential international identity in the early days of independence, so it was impossible to talk about the problem of ontology insecurity caused by the narrative crisis of international identity. On the contrary, rebuilding spiritual order amid ideological chaos, reshaping group identity, and providing citizens with a sense of belonging and security are the country's top priorities. Well, after more than 30 years of development, Kazakhstan has begun to shape international roles such as a responsible and reliable partner, a bridge for dialogue between Eastern and Western civilizations, a mediator of international and regional conflicts, and a trade hub for Eurasia. The fifth edition of the Foreign Policy Concept of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2020 - 2030 in 2020 puts forward the three international identities that Kazakhstan will pursue in the future-a leader in Central Asia, a key country in Europe and Asia, and a responsible member of the international community. It can be seen that Kazakhstan has a relatively clear positioning of its international identity. In addition, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has brought new variables to the geopolitical situation in Europe and Asia, stimulating Kazakhstan to take new actions on the issue of identity. For example, the introduction of new regulations on the Nationality Law in 2021, and the resurgence of Kazakh nationalism. Existing research at home and abroad has rarely been involved for the time being.
In addition, the case study on ontology security in Kazakhstan shows that seeking ontology security is a task that any country must face as a being-doing. The domestic noumenon insecurity factors in countries in transition are more complex, and the perspective of social relations may have a stronger explanation for the noumenon security issues in such countries.
Authors | Yang Bo, Professor and Ph.D. Supervisor at Shanghai International Studies University; Deputy Director of the Russian Studies Center at Shanghai International Studies University. Chang Xianmin, Ph.D. candidate at Shanghai International Studies University; Associate Professor at the School of Foreign Languages, Shihezi University.
Source | Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies, No. 2, 2025.
Translated and Reviewed by Xiao Xiao with AI translator
