The tension between human agency and social structures is an inherently compelling subject. However, exploring human agency within a totalitarian system is challenging. In this context, Claire P. Kaiser's concept of entitlement, portraying Georgians as an “entitled nationhood,” is particularly intriguing.
Kaiser defines entitlement as “terminology [that] encompasses both the statistical and legal implications of living in one's ‘own’ territory, endowing individuals with special rights and privileges to which they could appeal in a variety of ways” (9). The book prompts readers to delve into the entitled positionality of Georgians within the Soviet Union while encouraging discourse surrounding the comparative and contrasting dynamics between Georgian entitled nationality and other ethnicities. Kaiser posits that Georgians were not passive recipients of central policy but actively pursued local agendas. She delineates Georgia's entitled claims, both successful and unsuccessful, and elucidates their negotiation process within a system that provided both opportunities and limitations. The mere articulation and assertion of such claims can be considered an act of agency.
Ch. 1 discusses the emergence of Georgian entitlement, examining the policies enacted by figures such as Iosif Stalin and Lavrentii Beriia that catalyzed the inception of this ideological construct. It discusses Stalin's approach and solution to national questions and his emerging cult, setting the stage for Georgian entitlement. Two pivotal cases are discussed: the Soviet Census, condensing the 191 narodnosti into sixty-two categorical ethnonational categories, and the establishment of the official primordialist Georgian historical narrative by historians Simon Janashia and Nikoloz Berdzenishvili. Ch. 2 examines how GSSR foreign policy was endowed only by Soviet institutions. The key actors of the local agency here are historians Janashia and Berdzenishvili, a concerned citizen named Giorgi Gamkharashvili, and officials from the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kandid Charkviani and Giorgi Kiknadze, under Stalin's patronage. Kaiser then analyzes the unsuccessful claims of the Fereydan Georgians and Saingilo, highlighting the local scholarly and public advocacy that failed to achieve changes (territorial concessions from Turkey and Azerbaijan) but still marked a symbolic victory. In Ch. 3, Kaiser explores the ethnic consolidation within Georgia, despite the expulsion of numerous ethnic Georgians.
This investigation particularly focuses on “Operation Volna,” which targeted ethnic minorities for expulsion (Greeks, Turks, Dashnaks, and others). Key political figures (Beriia, K. Charkviani, and Akaki Mgeladze) are identified as local agents of demographic homogenization. Chs. 4 and 6 analyze pivotal events, such as the 1956 demonstrations and the Abkhazian independence demand, and entitled agency, illustrating the negotiation of center-periphery relations between Moscow, Tbilisi, and Sukhumi. Despite the protest movement's visible setback on April 9, indicative of ruptured relations between Georgians and the Soviet regime, Kaiser contends that it spurred a notable change in Soviet policy towards Georgia. This shift, marked by reduced intervention, facilitated Georgia's acquisition of greater autonomy and benefits, shaping a transformative path in the region's socio-political landscape. Ch. 5 scrutinizes the advantages stemming from the Soviet Union's urbanization and modernization projects that made “Georgian” Tbilisi's existence possible. Focusing on a post-Stalin national social contract, this is the period she identifies as the one when the “hegemony of the entitled Georgian nationality flourished in Georgia” (7). The novelty and contribution of this chapter is this interesting switch from political figures, such as Eduard Shevardnadze (who is a crucial enabler and assuager in navigating the national social contract) to entitled citizens who become agents of entitled nationhood (explored on the example of Saburtalo, building designs, second economy, and letters of grievances). In Ch. 6, Kaiser brings attention to the 1978 Georgian protests related to removing the Georgian language from GSSR's constitution and illustrates how rights claims were openly made “in the name of a national-civic cause, while still being under a Soviet imperial umbrella” (164).
One of the novelties of Kaiser's analysis is that it incorporates three important times of protests (1956, 1978, and 1989), and she develops the historical context of entitled nationhood. At times, Kaiser points to the non-uniqueness of the Georgian group, such as in migration patterns to urban areas, language clauses in the Constitution, and territorial claims. While its forms were not entirely unique to Georgians, Georgian entitlement was still identified through the ethnic republic-level leadership that resulted more in Georgian-versus-Georgian dynamics rather than a center-periphery dichotomy. Kaiser concludes that the Soviet Union successfully shaped nations, producing Soviet Georgia.
Kaiser's work adds to Erik R. Scott's Familiar Strangers: The Georgian Diaspora and the Evolution of Soviet Empire (2016), an examination of the successes and uniqueness of the Georgian diaspora within the Soviet empire. Both authors depict Georgians as both agents and objects of imperial policies, contrasting with the post-April 9, 1989 narrative of victimhood. Kaiser demonstrates a deep grasp of Soviet studies, with particular expertise in the Georgian context and the literature on empires drawing from archival collections in Tbilisi, Moscow, and Stanford; extremely valuable data.
The work stands as an undeniably valuable resource for social scientists studying individual, community, or national agency. Additionally, scholars specializing in the Soviet Union will find the Georgian case an exemplary model for the discussion of nationalism in the Soviet context. Furthermore, the comparative analysis with neighboring post-Soviet nations such as Armenia and Azerbaijan offers a deeper examination and very nuanced approach.
