This Is not a Centre: Post-Soviet States in the Quest for Political Values

Ch. 2. P. 43–61.

Kaspe S. I.

The notions of “center” and “periphery” do not only pertain to geography, politics, economics, and culture. First and foremost, they are about values. Indeed, the ability to produce values that are meaningful for “others” provides an individual (a group, an institute, or the society) with the characteristic of centrality, while the acceptance of these very values by the “others” provides them with the characteristic of peripherality. Consequently, this is how the power of the “center” over the “periphery” arises and acquires legitimacy. 

The history of the political transformations of the post-Soviet space is also about values. The Soviet empire has fallen apart mainly because it became incapable of producing values and stopped being a value itself. Since then all post-Soviet polities have been trying to find a new source of politically relevant values, both internal and external. The domestic difficulties in the post-Soviet states, conflicts between them, as well as troubles in the relations with its neighbours possess one basic reason – the center (centers) is yet to be found, and not a single contender was able to establish itself in that position. The article focuses on the different strategies used by the post-Soviet states to find and/or construct the “center” and the causes of its modest success.

Keywords: political values, empire, center and periphery, Post-soviet space

Publication based on the results of: Between Political theology and cognitive sciences: new alternative options, new chalenges, or new recources for social theory (2020)

In book

Centres and Peripheries in the Post-Soviet Space: Relevance and Meanings of a Classical Distinction.

Bern: Peter Lang, 2020.