15. We have seen several moves in this direction even in our narrower area scholarship, see:
Bockman, Johanna, Markets in the Name of Socialism: The Left-Wing Origins of Neoliberalism (Stanford, CA, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar;
Rogers, Douglas, “Postsocialisms Unbound: Connections, Critiques, Comparisons,” Slavic Review
69, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 1–15
CrossRefGoogle Scholar;
Chari, Sharad and Verdery, Katherine, “Thinking between the Posts: Postcolonialism, Postsocialism, and Ethnography after the Cold War,” Contemporary Studies in Society and History
51, no. 1 (January 2009): 6–34
CrossRefGoogle Scholar;
Boyer, Dominic and Yurchak, Alexei, “American Stiob: Or, What Late-Socialist Aesthetics of Parody Reveal about Contemporary Political Culture in the West,” Cultural Anthropology
25, no. 2 (May 2010): 179–221
CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In a way, an earlier debate critical forum on Ukraine on the pages of this journal can also be seen as part of this epistemological endeavor (Slavic Review 74, 4). Whether we agree with
Snyder, Timothy’s use of the colonial/postcolonial conceptual apparatus (“Integration and Disintegration: Europe, Ukraine, and the World,” Slavic Review
74, no. 4 [Winter 2015]: 695–707)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, it too was made in the spirit of exploring relations rather than comparing (a methodological move that usually presupposes a good measure of independence of the units compared). I consider applications of coloniality to eastern Europe in whatever variety, one subset of relationality-type arguments (
Gille, Zsuzsa, “Is There a Global Postsocialist Condition?,” Global Society, 24, No. 1 [January 2010]: 9–30
CrossRefGoogle Scholar.)
