Religious-secular discourse in Kazakhstani society: a political science and mathematical study of the polarization of social groups
DOI:
10.48010/re5tt245Keywords
religiosity
secularity
Kazakhstani society
social groups
differences in views
religious integration
mathematical modeling
Abstract
The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between religion and secularity in contemporary Kazakhstani society from the perspective of differences in views among social groups, using political science, sociological, and mathematical modeling methods. The main purpose of the study is to examine society’s attitude toward religious integration within a secular state and to forecast possible social conflicts in the religious sphere. The paper considers the applicability of diffusion equations and the Langevin model for modeling and forecasting religious-secular tensions, while the process of mutual informational interaction among individuals through a communicative field is described from a mathematical perspective. Based on the analysis of phase portraits, a stability region characterizing a stable and conflict-free state of the social system is identified; an analytical solution to the resulting system of equations is proposed for the divergent type of diffusion. The views of various social groups in Kazakhstan, including rural and urban residents as well as representatives of younger and older generations, on the influence of religion on state policy are comparatively analyzed, and significant differences among them are identified. The methodological significance of game theory and mathematical modeling in contemporary conflict studies is particularly emphasized. It is demonstrated that the proposed models make it possible to monitor the dynamics of social distance and to prevent future conflicts. The results of the study are presented as a scientific and practical basis aimed at improving state policy in the religious sphere and strengthening social stability.
How to Cite
References
1 Taylor, C. (2018). A secular age. Harvard University Press.
2 Shvedovskiy, V. A. (2010). Sotsiologo-matematicheskie modeli v issledovanii sotsial’nykh protsessov [Sociological and mathematical models in the study of social processes] [Doctoral dissertation]. (In Russian)
3 Asad, T. (2003). Formations of the secular: Christianity, Islam, modernity. Stanford University Press.
4 Casanova, J. (2006). Rethinking secularization: A global comparative perspective. The Hedgehog Review, 8(1–2), 7–22.
5 Berger, P. (1999). The desecularization of the world: Resurgent religion and world politics. Ethics and Public Policy Center.
6 Habermas, J. (2006). On the relations between the secular liberal state and religion. In Political theologies: Public religions in a post-secular world (pp. 251–260).
7 Sihimbaeva, D. A., & Şyñğysbaev, L. S. (2019). Zaiyrlylyqty anyqtaudağy negizgi metodologiyalyq täsilder: Qazaqstan täjiribesi [Main methodological approaches to defining secularism: The experience of Kazakhstan]. Äl-Farabi atyndağy Qazaq Ūlttyq Universiteti Habarşysy. Filosofiya, mädeniettanu jäne sayasattanu seriyasy, (2), 274–281. (In Kazakh)
8 Kenzhetai, D. (2017). Zaiyrly el – qaiyrly el [A secular country is a prosperous country]. (In Kazakh)
9 Yemelianova, G. M. (2014). Islam, national identity and politics in contemporary Kazakhstan. Asian Ethnicity, 15(3), 286–301.
10 Boulding, K. (1962). Conflict and defense: A general theory. Harper & Brothers.
11 Laptev, A. A. (2002). Matematicheskoe modelirovanie global’nykh sotsial’nykh protsessov [Mathematical modeling of global social processes] [Candidate dissertation]. (In Russian)
12 Bolotskiy, A. V. (2019). Matematicheskoe programmirovanie i teoriya igr [Mathematical programming and game theory]. Lan’. (In Russian)
13 Chaudhuri, N., Gupta, G., Bagherzadeh, M., Daim, T., & Yalcin, H. (2024). Misinformation on social platforms: A review and research agenda. Technology in Society, 78, Article 102654.
14 Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2018). The political significance of social media activity and social networks. Political Communication, 35(3), 470–493.
15 van Zoonen, W., Luoma-aho, V., & Lievonen, M. (2024). Trust but verify? Examining the role of trust in institutions in the spread of unverified information on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 150, 1–9.
16 Mueller, G. P. (2017). Getting order out of chaos: A mathematical model of political conflict. Russian Sociological Review, 16(4), 37–52.
17 Schweitzer, F. (2018). Sociophysics. Physics Today, 71(2), 40–46.
18 Gardiner, C. W. (1994). Handbook of stochastic methods for physics, chemistry and the natural sciences. Springer.
19 Risken, H. (1989). The Fokker–Planck equation: Methods of solution and applications (2nd ed.). Springer.
20 Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (adult and junior). Hodder and Stoughton.
21 Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423, 623–656.
22 Khalil, H. K. (2002). Nonlinear systems (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
23 Pontryagin, L. S., Boltyanskii, V. G., Gamkrelidze, R. V., & Mishchenko, E. F. (1962). The mathematical theory of optimal processes. Interscience Publishers.
24 Neumann, M., Braun, A., Heinke, E.-M., Saqalli, M., & Srbljinovic, A. (2011). Challenges in modelling social conflicts: Grappling with polysemy. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14(3), 1–9.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Мархаббат Нуров, Оралбек Ысқақ