Gullette, David. "Theories on Central Asian factionalism: the debate". Central Asian Survey, vol.26, no.3 (2007): 373-387.

Gullette, David. "Theories on Central Asian factionalism: the debate". Central Asian Survey, vol.26, no.3 (2007): 373-387.

• The author understands that the English terms 'clan' and 'tribe' and their equivalents in other languages are strongly influenced by primordialist theories of ethnic creation and evolutionary models of society based on contentious kinship models of organization. As a result, the terms 'rod' and 'plemya' will be used instead, while recognizing the daily use of these terms in Kazkahstan and the Kyrgyz Republic does not match the Soviet theoretical context of their academic use (374).
• This paper examines the way that Central Asian society is analysed in terms of clan, tribal, and regional divisions, and the effects that these lenses have on the field in general. The author also examines the legitimacy of these distinctions and proposes an alternative framework (375).
• The view that factionalism in Central Asian politics is largely driven by regional ties based on local patronage networks is promoted by Pauline Jones Luong, whereas views where clans are the driving force in factionalism are promoted by Kathleen Collins and Edward Schatz (375).
• Dr. Luong says that the primary mode of political mobilization in post-Soviet Central Asia is regionalism based on local ties. Local languages use terms translated as 'tribe' or 'clan' when describing these forms of associations, leading to confusing and misrepresentation by other scholars. She identifies three main reasons for the existence of these divisions (376).
• The form of the Soviet administrative system attempted to create a nationalism in each of the republics where none had existed before, leading to a forceful distribution of the previous 'kinship ties' between ethnic groups, who were no forced to associated with administrative and territorial divisions, rather than ethnic ones (376).
• The economic specialization of the Soviet system further disrupted pre-existing ethnic or 'tribal' affiliations, as it forced groups into relationships of dependence on local state officials often unassociated with the dominate ethnicity or traditional governing authorities (376).
• The Soviet policy of rough regional equity and/or regional favouritism depending on the situation led to a situation where regional identity became an important factor in politics, as Union-level appointments where made on the basis of policies largely based off of concerns with regional disparities (376). 
• Dr. Collins argues that clans remain central means of organization and mobilization in Central Asia and that regionalism is in fact contained within the 'clan' structure. Dr. Collins argues that kinship ties are still central to clan organization, and that other corporate bonds are secondary to the greater family structure. Clans have been allowed to exist because late state formation which did not replace the clan -- as happened in the West, late formation of national identity which allowed clans to remain the primary source of identification, and the absence of market relations, which makes participation in informal distribution networks a viable means of survival (377).
• The decentralized kolxoz system of farm management allowed the clans to retain their grip on power for a long period of time by formalizing their position at the head of distribution networks. The particular cadre system pursued under the Soviet Union also allowed for the entry of clan politics at the republican level (378).
• A central conclusion drawn from Dr. Collins's theory of Central Asian politics is that states must either choose between stability or corruption. Successful states like Uzbekistan or the Kyrgyz Republic managed to balance the interests of clan elites within a redistributive system, whereas Tajikistan collapsed because it failed to reach a agreement on resource division acceptable to all the clans (378).
• The view of clan structure as prevalent and important is also put forward by Dr. Schatz, who I hate with a passion, and who claims that clans are a major structural component of modern Central Asian politics and are based around segmented linear kinship systems of association. Dr. Schatz argues that these groupings are extremely cultural important, but they also represent political and economic associations, through which much of Central Asia politics is mobilized (378).
• Further examination of the discourse on the nature of the 'clan' and the relationship between 'clan' structures and regionalism is complex and nuanced, with no clear tenants. Within these arguments, several scholars conceptualize 'clans' as larger political patron-client systems with little bearing to traditional primordialism. The work of Dr. Scott Radnitz also shows that just like elsewhere, people will often mobilize friends and family for political purposes before or without turing to patronage systems of politics (379-381).
• Many scholars make the cogent point that just because an identity exists does not mean that it represents a commonplace or primary axis for mobilization or organization. Just because someone identifies with an ethnic group, does not mean they only or primarily mobilized based on that ethnic group (381).
• Anthropological conceptions of kinship and geneology, as well as contemporary discourses on these traditional opinions are provided from page 382 to page 384.
• "The concept of genealogical imagination, which demonstrates the construction of relatedness through various kinship categories. It also demonstrates the lack of clear corporate groups. This was often illustrated during fieldwork by people I met, people who did not attach much importance to their rod and plemya" (385).
• "Factions are constantly formed, but often do not represent actual groups and do not represent a singular framework through which people understand their experiences" (385).