This article discusses A. Chokobayeva and N. Shelekpayev’s critique of Müller’s concept of the ‘Global East’ to describe the former socialist East, as well as their proposal to adopt a ‘tactical essentialism of national discourses’, which they consider necessary for the production of social science research in Central Asia, liberated from Russian interpretations of the past and present. Consequently, the article discusses the limitations of major paradigms, including that of the “Global East”. It argues that this term ignores the fact that the scholarly field it is supposed to unite is divided by a post-colonial configuration that fosters divergent views. Furthermore, it highlights that this notion also neglects the crucial issue of research autonomy from political affairs. Finally, the article critiques the use of tactical essentialism as a response to these issues. However, the promotion of essentialism — be it tactical or strategic — in Central Asian studies, despite its laudable ambition to move away from imperial and neo-imperial narratives, can exacerbate organic, essentialist and nationalist visions of identity and nation already prevalent in political powers and public opinion. Therefore, the authors argue for a methodological postulate of critical and dispassionate constructivism that guarantees as much autonomy as possible for research in and on Central Asia.