Contribution short abstract:

Reflecting on two research projects I carried out in Kyrgyzstan on sensitive topics (i.e. Islam and gender) this paper asks whether subjects like these should be investigated or if the danger of feeding stereotypical tropes on an ‘unknown region’ is too large.

Contribution long abstract:

As the roundtable organizers point out, Central Asia is often ‘minor-ized’ in wider anthropology. Even among anthropologists, who stylize themselves as highly literate global citizens, Central Asia remains the proverbial ‘blank spot’ on their mental world maps and in their anthropological theories. The situation is no different outside the discipline where Euro-American social scientists, governments, (I)NGOs, research funding bodies, and even (social) media publics fail to notice the region except when it comes to its perceived threats to, or apparent lapses from the models of, the so-called West (e.g. Islamic terrorism, full democratization, or gender equality)

This dual marginalization creates added problems for anthropologists investigating sensitive and/or politicized topics in Central Asia (e.g. Islam or gender). The potential for the exoticization, orientalization or religio-racialization of the region increases. Reflecting on research projects I have carried out in Kyrgyzstan on topics like these (i.e. Islam, religious marriage, and bride abduction) this paper asks whether these subjects should be investigated at all or if the danger of feeding these tropes is too large. Following Deeb (2010), and in light of recent discussions of decolonization in Central Asia, I ask whether we can do “honestly critical work about gender and sexuality without fueling racist stereotypes” (Deeb 2010) and what role the subjectivity of the researcher plays in these investigations.