Paper short abstract:

This paper etically analyses First President of Kazakhstan emic discourse in his book The Kazakhstani Way (2006), in which he recalls his perspective of Kazakhstani state construction since its independence from the Soviet Union on December 16th, 1991.

Paper long abstract:

Following Charles Saunders Peirce's and Guido Ferraro's works in sociosemiotics and narratology, this paper etically analyses First President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev's emic discourse in his book The Kazakhstani Way (Rus. Kazakhstanskij put', 2006), in which he recalls his perspective of Kazakhstani state construction since its independence from the Soviet Union on December 16th, 1991. This innovative analysis of what this head of state means in his political and economic development self-discourse helps make more evident the effects it has on the agents and institutions that turn its messages into acts, as well as the dialogic relationships and contrasts between the macrolevel of the Kazakhstani state, and the microlevel of the citizens. The first part of this paper presents a synthesis of neoclassic sociosemiotic theory and narratology, and their relevance for the analysis of political acts and discourses. The second part puts these theories to the test, by decomposing in detail some of the most salient elements of meaning in President Nazarbayev's developmental storytelling. In six sections, this sociosemiotic analysis explores how a degradation leads a protagonist, here Nazarbayev's Kazakhstan, to establish a contract with more powerful social institutions in order to change its status. To meet the terms of this contract, the protagonist must acquire a set of competences, enabling it to perform a heroic feat that will officially sanction its change in status and allow it to reach its object of desire. In conclusion, this semiotic analysis provides a clearer understanding of how the contemporary Kazakhstani collective, as influenced by Nazarbayev, perceives itself in relation to its domestic and foreign contexts, and which directions this imagined political identity could take in future. It also provides new insights into how subjective identities are semiotically constructed and educated in contemporary Kazakhstan since the neoliberalisation of its previous Communist regime, and how this paradigmatic transition shapes its current motivations and aspirations.