Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In the twentieth century, Mongolia became subject to the Soviet version of nationalist thought. As the state constructed a single national ‘people’ (ündesten, ard tümen) it also, following the Soviet model, constructed the past in terms of tradition (ulamjlal), and launched the ethnographic project of identifying and describing sub-national ‘ethnic’ groups or tribes (aimag, yastan). Since the collapse of Soviet-style state socialism and the introduction of multi-party parliamentary politics, notions of both tradition and collective identity have become potential resources, particularly for politicians, to mobilize public support. Concepts of ‘local homeland’ (nutag) are particularly significant, reflecting to some degree the importance of social networks. This paper explores the ways in which Mongolians reconstruct tradition, assert collective identity and deploy concepts of belonging.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Sneath (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: