Authors: Kateřina Kohoutová, Iva Nádvorníková
Affiliation: Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague; Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 21 Prague-Suchdol, Czech Republic
Emails: iva.nadvornikova@gmail.com, kata.kohoutova@gmail.com
Language: Czech / English translation
Issue: 1/2014
Pages: 3–22 (20 pages)
Keywords: Everydayness, Kyrgyzstan, ideology, anthropological research, transformation of Central Asia
Summary/Abstract
The primary purpose of this report is to describe the territory of modern Kyrgyzstan from two sides (Russian and Anglo-American), thus characterising the cultural clash between the East and West in day-to-day life. Using everydayness to outline the situation allows for greater transparency in highlighting differences between these two cultures. How can an ordinary day in the life of an average Kyrgyz change if it is seen from the point of view of another country or ideology? It is possible to look at one country, its traditions, and customs from two different points of view, often leading to completely different conclusions. Attempts to objectively describe the situation are often affected by ideologies, time, and the experiences and nature of the scientist or traveller. Precisely these aspects, which have influenced perceptions of day-to-day life, will be taken into consideration and explained more thoroughly. A particular emphasis is placed on factors such as the cultural background of the observer, their ideology, religion, and their personal relation to a given territory. In clarifying differences in the evaluation of everyday life in Kyrgyzstan in terms of East and West, this article shows how different interpretations arise depending on who expresses the opinion.
Česká verze:Introduction
Kyrgyzstan is a landlocked country located in the very centre of Central Asia. It shares its longest borders with Kazakhstan to the north and China to the southeast, while the rest of its territory borders Uzbekistan to the west and Tajikistan to the southwest. In an area of 198,500 km², approximately 5.5 million people reside (2012)[1]. The capital city is Bishkek, situated in the north, formerly known as Frunze (or Pishpek). Since 1991, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kyrgyzstan has been a parliamentary republic. Yet, twenty years after gaining independence, Russian is still used as a lingua franca and operates as the country’s second official language alongside Kyrgyz. Russians constitute the third-largest minority in the country, with neighbouring Uzbeks ranking second.[2]
Figure 1. Map of Kyrgyzstan
Source: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/kyrgyzstan_pol_05.jpg
Kyrgyzstan today draws interest from Russia, the United States, and China. Due to its geographical position, it is used by the Americans as a transit point to Afghanistan. Russia has never relinquished its influence, and neighbouring China has also shown interest in Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyz people feel torn, unsure of whose side to take—America, Russia, or China? says student Begimai, who co-organises projects as a volunteer for the non-profit organisation Foundation for International Tolerance in southern Kyrgyzstan.
Perspectives on Everyday Life in Historical Periods
Everyday life is defined in various ways depending on the field of study to which it pertains. In general, however, the term is perceived as a collection of situations and activities that individuals perform in their usual environment. Everyday activities are repetitive, become routine, are automatic, collectively understood, and often performed unconsciously. Everyday life is taken for granted, shaped by traditions, customs, morals, food, work, socialisation, leisure, family life, the fulfilment of daily roles, and so on. The opposite of everydayness is a crisis situation, which disrupts regular life. In his Dictionary of Sociological Terms, Jan Jandourek states: In the world of everydayness, unwritten norms often prevail, everyday language and common sense are used, events are taken for granted, and the environment is experienced as familiar.[3] The concept of everyday life began to be discussed in sociology at the beginning of the twentieth century and is associated with the names of prominent sociologists, such as Alfred Schütz (1899–1959) and Edmund Husserl (1859–1938).
Awareness of everyday life in distant parts of the world is acquired by the majority of society, which may never visit these areas, through travel literature and the influence of media. The following chapter aims to shed light on the perspectives of two distinct cultures in the conceptual categories of East and West, and to compare how life in Kyrgyzstan was portrayed in a given historical period. How were the opinions of selected observers shaped, and how might the same reality differ when viewed through the lens of someone from another country or cultural background? Do ideology, time, experiences, and the character of the scientist or traveller play a role? And could the study of such data still hold value today?
Pre-Soviet Period (1880–1917)
The current strong influence of Russia in Kyrgyzstan has deep historical roots. The view of the territorial and political organisation of Central Asia has changed dramatically over the last hundred years. What we now see as five independent states in Central Asia was, before the Soviet division, a self-governing area based on clan and tribal rule (in the early 19th century, the southern part of present-day Kyrgyzstan was part of the Kokand Khanate). Before the USSR, people would not primarily identify themselves as Kyrgyz or Uzbek; they would more likely align themselves with one of many clans or based on regional affiliation. Although Soviet authorities attempted to divide the region into unified national states (these borders persist today), the Central Asian region remains ethnically very diverse.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, few Europeans ventured into places on the map often marked hic sunt leones[4]; it was the pursuit of only a few individuals. It was not until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that the number of adventurers and travellers began to increase. People came to Central Asia for various reasons—missions, trade, ethnographic and geographical research, and expeditions. These were mostly representatives of the Russian Empire, which had a growing interest in Central Asia.
One of the first Russian pioneers was Petr Petrovich Semenov (Semyonov) (1827–1914), a soldier and a trained physicist and mathematician who also devoted himself to botany, geology, and geography. Although his research focused primarily on the natural conditions of the Heavenly Mountains[5] and Lake Issyk-Kul[6], his studies also provided observations on the lives and culture of the local people at that time. In his book Travels in Tian Shan: 1856–1857 (1948), he mentions everyday activities of the Kyrgyz, from the most basic to specific situations, such as a dispute between two Kyrgyz clans that arose when arranging a marriage between their descendants.[7] For his contributions, he earned the nickname the Tian Shan.
Following in Semyonov’s footsteps was Nikolay Mikhaylovich Przhevalsky (1839–1888), who mapped vast amounts of previously unknown territory, primarily in Siberia and Inner Asia (as it was then known), mainly in the areas of modern-day China and Mongolia. He did not focus much on life in Kyrgyzstan in his notes, although he travelled through it on his journeys. His goal was to visit Lhasa, the mysterious capital of Tibet, though he never made it there. His fifth expedition proved fatal when, on his way to Karakol along the shore of Issyk-Kul, he drank contaminated water, contracted typhoid, and died.[8] In Karakol, a large museum and several memorials are dedicated to him.
Pre-Soviet Period (1880–1917)
Nikolay Alexandrovich Severtsev (1827–1885) was also among the explorers who primarily aimed to map unexplored parts of Inner Asia (he was the first European to visit and explore the central range of the Pamir Mountains) but incidentally recorded valuable ethnographic data. For example, he describes the role of women among the Kyrgyz and the division of labour: Kyrgyz women are very assertive. They are the mistresses of the entire dwelling – the yurt… Only during celebrations does a woman appear entirely subordinate to her husband, not even eating with him (…) as the hostess, she must first serve the guests. Otherwise, in everyday situations, this task often falls to the man… inside the yurt, the man is reserved, while she is assertive and independent. When the aul is attacked[9] the men grab weapons and rush to the herd, while the women remain in place and defend themselves. He also notes the ways Kyrgyz herders overwinter in high altitudes. He mentions that herders use dried sheep dung, or kizyak, as fuel, and take advantage of the landscape’s natural features when constructing dwellings… hidden places appeal to the Kyrgyz for wintering, partly because they are well protected from the wind and also because the mountain-dwelling Karakyrgyz love to keep their auls concealed.[10]
Travellers from other countries besides Russia also ventured into the distant regions of Central Asia. An example is the English traveller and clergyman Henry Lansdell (1841–1919), who travelled through Russia, Central Asia, and Siberia with the goal of distributing biblical texts. His travel notes, published in the books Through Siberia (1882) and Russian Central Asia (1885), were very popular in England, with the former even translated into German, Danish, and Swedish.[11]
His second book, in which he describes the civilisations of Central Asia from the perspective of a traveller and missionary (mentioning the distribution of more than 100,000 copies of the Bible), is particularly significant for its insights into everyday life. Lansdell’s preliminary research was based on publications by mainly Russian colleagues, as by 1885 only a few Western Europeans had managed to reach so deep into Russian Asia (as it was then called). He obtained permission from the Tsar for his journey and received support from local representatives of the Russian Empire. Lansdell himself did not speak Russian, so communication with Asian ethnic groups often required two interpreters.
Lansdell describes the Kyrgyz as fierce nomads, simple yet very honourable and brave. Unlike surrounding tribes, they can transform into common thieves when profit is at stake and can be quite vengeful. He also describes their lifestyle and traditions, many of which they have preserved to this day. He observes the drink kumis and discusses the traditional Kyrgyz cult of hospitality, still prevalent today. He mentions polygyny, adding that the average Kyrgyz does not have the financial means (or the equivalent in livestock and animals) to support more than one wife (the wealthier had as many as five). He describes yurts as typical dwellings, whose use and relocation differ little from the present day. The Kyrgyz also migrated with their herds several times a year, according to the seasons.
According to Lansdell, the Kyrgyz nation was divided into two groups: the wealthier, who settled near cities and worked as labourers in Russian factories and mines, and the poorer, predominantly involved in agriculture. In terms of religion, all Kyrgyz are considered Muslims (influenced by the strong presence of ancient Samarkand and Bukhara), though, according to Lansdell, there is also a blend of traditional religions (animism) with elements of Christianity in the area.
The status of women, according to Lansdell, is more complex than that of men. The traditional role of men as hunters has gradually evolved, though this change did not affect the division of labour within the family. Only women were given additional duties, alongside managing the entire household. Lansdell’s attitude towards the Russians is very positive. When asked by a Kyrgyz elder during a gathering in a yurt, he replies that the English and Russians are close friends. He describes his Russian guides as principled and helpful people. He always receives willing assistance from them and observes no issues in their relationships with the Kyrgyz or other ethnic groups in the area.[12]
Another traveller who published his observations of Asia in the pre-Soviet period is the American professor of geography at Yale University and student of Friedrich Ratzel, Ellsworth Huntington (1876–1947). In 1905, he published his notes in Explorations in Turkestan, focusing not only on the geographical and climatic conditions of Central Asia but also on the lives of the local population. As a proponent of environmental determinism, he often tries to demonstrate the strong influence of climate and environment in his work, though he admits that this influence cannot be directly proven for certain factors (such as the appearance of people). He focuses on the Kyrgyz and their pastoral nomadic lifestyle, which, in his view, is the only viable way of life in these conditions (even in the future, regardless of the societal development the local community may undergo).
He describes the breeding and types of domestic animals, the appearance and functionality of dwellings (kibitka)[13], furniture, utensils, and clothing. A more detailed subsection is devoted to food and eating customs. His notes convey a faint disdain, as he remarks: the typical fare, which I have often witnessed, may be unpleasant to civilized nerves. He provides an elaborate account of an occasion where he was invited into a well-furnished kibitka and entertained. He writes of how they kindled a fire on dried dung, heated water for tea, and subsequently served (considered a luxury) bread and sugar, milk and cream, and then kumis, which Huntington claims remains an indispensable item in the Kyrgyz diet. …Finally, each man raised his hands to his face, stroked his beard, and murmured a blessing to Allah.“ After the tea, which the author regards as a novelty borrowed from the Russians, came storytelling about travels and heroic deeds. As the company grew weary under the influence of kumis, the host finally arrived, and preparations for the main meal began. Huntington provides a candid account of the diners and their manner of eating various parts of mutton and dishes prepared from it. He also mentions sampling foal meat, which, in his view, would be fit for a gourmet’s refined table.
Regarding the Kyrgyz people, he states that they are, like other pastoralists, highly hospitable and friendly, and due to their isolation, also deeply curious. The author mentions the Kyrgyz tradition of traveling on horseback and expresses surprise at its significance; instead of the traditional comment on the weather, the Kyrgyz would say: How is your animal today? or Does [the horse] have a good gait? In conjunction with this, Huntington also discusses the Kyrgyz national sport bagai, in which riders on horseback compete to capture a calf.
On the topic of local knowledge, he states: “These people possess knowledge (…) drawn from experience, yet book learning is exceedingly rare here. (…) Were they entirely isolated from the outside world, this might suffice, (…) but as things stand, the Kyrgyz cannot endure the harsh reality of civilization.” He goes on to say that “the arrival of the Russians has greatly benefited them, ensuring peace, security, and a good market for the products of their herds in the region. It has also contributed to their happiness by providing luxury goods such as tea, sugar, bread, and affordable cotton fabrics available to all.” He reminds us, however, that the arrival of the Russians may harm the traditional Kyrgyz way of life if it leads them to replace their nomadic existence with that of wage labourers. He supports this argument by noting that a certain “idleness” or “tranquillity,” which is, in a way, part of the nomadic life (often involving waiting on the road, avoiding haste, etc.), is incompatible with the rhythm associated with regular daily work. “And thus, it seems that the Kyrgyz, who come into close contact with the Russians, appear to be deteriorating. Idleness breeds dishonesty, and both lead to insolence and vulgarity.” Huntington identifies a further problem in the change related to the (non-)relocation of kibitkas, which, when stationary for extended periods (six months or a year) at one location, leads to an accumulation of disorder and filth, which would not occur under normal nomadic conditions.
He contrasts the strong social position of women in nomadic society with the restricted freedoms of women in other Muslim nations, attributing this difference to the nomadic lifestyle and various environmental factors that influence it, thereby alluding to environmental determinism.
Soviet Period (1917–1991)
After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent formation of the Soviet Union, the newly established Kirghizia underwent numerous changes. Industry was developed, agriculture mechanised, social infrastructure built, and education and healthcare advanced, while extensive urbanisation took place. Although this modernisation contributed to a radical increase in living standards, it was often enforced with little regard for the traditions, customs, and culture of the local population. The languages of the Central Asian republics were codified. Soviet “unifying” elements permeated even the daily lives of the Kyrgyz; for instance, traditional wedding and funeral customs were criticised, lists of “suitable names” were approved for Kyrgyz children, and so forth. Nomadic herders were forcibly settled, and collectivisation was imposed (particularly in the 1920s and 1930s, with trials held for wealthy herd owners, many of whom were sentenced and exiled to Siberia).[14]
How did Soviet citizens write about Kyrgyzstan (or Kirghizia)[15] and life within it? In 1927, V. Lavrov published an article in the Trade and Industry News on the subject of Industrialisation of the National Republics and Regions, examining various parts of the USSR and charting their industrial development. He noted that in most national republics, agriculture significantly outweighed industry, which was only beginning to develop. He stated, “…extreme backwardness and primitiveness characterises agricultural areas…” and then proposed necessary measures:
…One of the primary objectives of the Soviet Union’s economic policy is the immediate elimination of remnants of the old order and the economic backwardness of national republics and regions.[16] He also highlights the progress Central Asia has achieved: In 1920, with the consolidation of Soviet power in Central Asia and particularly after the division of [Central Asia] into independent national republics in 1924, (…) rapid industrialisation took place. Gross industrial production in Central Asia reached 98.1 million roubles in 1924–1925, 130.8 million roubles in 1925–1926, and 159.6 million roubles in 1926–27. This indicates that in the last five years, industrial production in Central Asia has increased nearly ninefold.[17] Lavrov’s article, though strongly ideologically biased and uncritical in its praise of the Soviet Union, contains data that can be valuable if handled with caution.
A comprehensive report on Kyrgyzstan’s development over the past fifty years since its inception was published by Kazy Dikambayev in 1960. His brochure, entitled Kyrgyzstan: The Complete Transformation of a Formerly Backward Colony, describes the establishment of the Soviet Union and the annexation of Kyrgyzstan: The October Socialist Revolution marked a radical change in the history of the Kyrgyz people. It shattered the chains of colonial bondage, (…) liberated the Kyrgyz from social oppression, and gained them national freedom.[18] Dikambayev speaks of the introduction of industry and the training of skilled workers: One of the outstanding achievements of Soviet Kyrgyzstan is the rapid increase in skilled labourers, (…) formerly illiterate nomads and herders have acquired skills in many crafts and are now employed as steelworkers, machinists, electricians, and workers in textile and footwear manufacturing. The number of workers had risen to 85,500 by 1958.
He describes the transformation of formerly pastoral areas into agricultural ones: Instead of primitive livestock farming by nomadic herders, Kyrgyzstan now boasts mechanised large-scale livestock operations managed by collective and state cooperatives. He notes economic achievements: In sugar production, Kyrgyzstan has surpassed even France and Italy. … Over the next seven years, Kyrgyzstan is projected to surpass the United States in per capita milk production. Dikambayev emphasises that “it was only after the Revolution, and particularly with the onset of extensive industrialisation and agricultural collectivisation, that the nomads experienced radical changes in their lives,” illustrated by the gradual transition from nomadic life to settlement (“…exchanging smoky tents for real apartments in cities…”).
In the subsection titled “The New Period,” the author addresses future prospects in various sectors: “During the next seven-year period, labour productivity is expected to increase rapidly, by over 50%, largely due to improved equipment and support for mechanisation and automation.” It is repeatedly noted in the text that “the Kyrgyz could not have achieved such progress without the assistance of other Soviet republics, particularly the Russian Federation.” The author concludes his text with the words: The reader has before them an image of the past and present life of the Kyrgyz people, (…) from poverty and backwardness to culture and progress.
Information from the “West” about Central Asia during the Soviet era primarily came from secondary sources—reports by occasional travellers or local refugees, which were often incomplete and frequently biased. Geoffrey Wheeler (1897–1990), a British soldier and historian specialising in Central Asia, who founded the Central Asian Research Centre in London in 1953, was also the editor of the periodical Central Asian Review. In one of his contributions, titled Soviet Policy in Central Asia (1955), he remarks that most of the factual data for his study was derived from Soviet sources, as he explains, despite their bias [ideological influence] they are the most detailed and significant sources for studying Central Asia, and that through “cautious and comprehensive study, a coherent picture of the real situation can be constructed.” Wheeler adds: To understand what is happening, and what might happen, in Central Asia, it is best to examine Soviet methods as impartially and objectively as possible.
Anti-Russian/anti-Bolshevik sentiment began forming shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), as evidenced by a passionate speech on April 28, 1920, in which Senator Henry L. Myers condemned the Bolshevik barbarians for the “nationalisation” of all women, the destruction of “home, hearth, family, the cornerstones of civilisation,” and the burial of that “which God created and ordained.”[19] Wheeler points out that the measures taken by the Soviet government to influence events in Central Asia have both positive and negative effects. The positive aspects include education, technical training, the promotion of arts and organised leisure. The negative side includes the use of propaganda against the practice of Islam and [religious] dogma, against established traditions, against “cosmopolitanism,” (…) along with the rewriting of history, (…) and perhaps most importantly, the application of language reforms.
In his study, Geoffrey Wheeler emphasises that Soviet authorities aim to increase Central Asia’s economic potential with or without the effective and voluntary cooperation of the native population. The progress achieved thus far appears to have been brought about primarily by Russian planning, initiative, control, and the presence of millions of white settlers rather than the efforts of the Central Asians themselves. Wheeler concludes with a warning that the Soviet government may in the future decide to increase the number of [its] settlers to outnumber and eventually assimilate the native population.[20]
In the United States, Soviet affairs were studied by Alexander Dallin, a professor at Stanford University, of Latvian descent on his mother’s side and Belarusian on his father’s. In the 1980s, he criticised the American approach and the distorted view of the Soviet Union. He noted that even those who should be better informed, such as journalists and statesmen, often made hasty conclusions and forecasts. He commented: In 1956, one public figure predicted: “Within twenty years, Soviet communism will collapse under the weight of its economic errors, political absurdities, and the pressure of a restless and discontented population.”[21] Professor Dallin also mentions that U.S. Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey himself admitted: I knew so little of Russian history that I was poorly equipped intellectually, experientially, or otherwise to deal with the head of the Soviet Union. And so few of our people, (…) possess any knowledge about these parts of the world. (…) We act out of superstition, and it is frightening how much so. No wonder we end up with such misleading [newspaper] headlines.[22]
The internationally renowned American magazine TIME has, since its founding in 1923, reported on world events, culture, science, and sports. In June 1980, it published a special issue titled Inside the U.S.S.R.: A Fortress State in Transition, in which it provided a thirteen-page summary of the situation in the Soviet Union under Brezhnev’s rule. Nature and human activity have endowed the Soviet Union with wealth and power. The remarkable achievements of the USSR in mining, agriculture, and energy production still evoke images of the famous Siberian mines, collective farms, and hydroelectric stations of the 1930s, when legions of political prisoners, conscripted peasants, and idealistic volunteers were “building communism” under the harsh oversight of armed guards and Stalinist commissars. Today’s reality is less brutal, yet the country still projects itself as a formidable power; its rhetoric on its own contributions and successes continues to evoke images of brute force, monumentality, and projects that often diminish or consume its people.
The magazine comments on life in the Soviet republics: Today’s Soviet citizens are better off than the peasants and impoverished classes [in the Tsar’s time], (…) better off than ten years ago. While they are not in dire straits, they remain oppressed and unhappy. Their state is more powerful than ever, yet its capacity to meet their daily needs remains insufficient.
Regarding the functioning of the Soviet economy, they write: The main reason is a system that cannot, and likely never will, work. The Soviet economy has always been hampered by excessive central planning and a lack of entrepreneurial motivation. Factories, farms, and individual workers are caught in a machinery that churns out quotas and directives, consumes outputs, and produces and distributes goods inefficiently, seldom rewarding initiative.
On Soviet society, they observe: The daily routine and seemingly intractable flaws of the system have a corrosive effect on social morale. Alcoholism is a growing problem. The vodka demon is a leading cause of divorce and crime, as well as absenteeism, workplace accidents, and poor productivity among Soviet workers. The capitalist world is hardly in a position to preach temperance to the communists. However, Soviet drinking—and drunkenness—differs in kind from the notorious American “three-martini lunch.” When a Soviet opens a bottle of vodka, it is often with the intent to drink it in one go. He is not seeking relaxation or a lift from anxiety to euphoria; he often drinks himself into oblivion.
Discussing the industrial sector, they remark: Industrialisation remains vital to the advancement of the Soviet economy; however, most factories are concentrated in the western part of the country, while overcrowding and unemployment prevail in the very underdeveloped Central Asia. Soviet economists have yet to devise a way to relocate either the industrial base or the growing labour force and bring them together.
The editors of TIME also address the expanding Russian influence over ethnic groups and nations living on Soviet territory: The Soviet policy toward the outside world and its own ethnic minorities is deeply rooted in a long-standing Russian xenophobia. …in the urban areas of the Caucasus and Central Asia, the Russian language is gradually infiltrating the indigenous languages, [especially] among the younger generation. They have the option of attending classes taught in their native languages, but they—and their parents—know that social advancement “up and out” in the USSR depends on the ability to communicate fluently with Moscow’s representatives. In Frunze, the capital of the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan, middle-aged government officials speak Russian with a strong accent, sometimes even needing help translating terms from their native language, which is related to Turkish. (…) In the provinces, Russian visitors are toasted as “our honourable elder brothers,” and Soviet propaganda skillfully plays on the theme of the nation as a whole—a unified brotherhood of nations—working for the benefit of the world and bringing prosperity to all ethnic groups. The authors note that currently, the USSR is relatively calm, with no major unrest: …around the capitals of the Central Asian republics are [military] units. The soldiers stationed there are typically from other parts of the union, not local; if they were ordered to suppress an uprising, they would not be shooting their ethnic kin.[23]
Post-Soviet Period to Present (1991–2013)
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kyrgyzstan experienced significant changes in all areas of daily life, politics, and the economy. Simultaneously, the world saw major shifts, as the Cold War came to an end, and many states previously under Moscow’s influence slowly and steadily turned toward the West. No longer was it necessary to define oneself strictly in opposition to communism or capitalism. As a result, radical views diminished, replaced largely by critiques and reflections, now even from within both Western and Eastern ranks. A certain degree of bias persisted, particularly when authors defended their own nations.
Asel Murzakulova and John Schoeberlein exemplify one of these post-Soviet changes. Murzakulova was affiliated with the Kyrgyz State University in Bishkek, while Schoeberlein worked as an anthropologist at Harvard. Despite differing cultural backgrounds (until recently still labelled as East and West), they jointly authored an article on the formation of Kyrgyz ideology. They describe how the development of a new ideology became part of the state-building process, serving as a means of communication between the elite and the population, mediating their relationships. The debate on ideology is an integral part of the search for social consensus. Dissatisfaction with the state ideology remains high, but its ongoing necessity reflects a lack of social cohesion.[24]
A similar theme is explored by Baktygul Ismailova[25] from Queen’s University in Canada. In her article, she describes the construction of national identity through language, culture, myths, legends, and epic heroes. This path was embraced by President Akaev following the revolution. He also endorsed rewriting history to foster national identity, bringing forth narratives of pre-Soviet heroes, where Lenin was replaced by Kurmanjan-Datka and Shabdan-batyr. The term Kyrgyz seems to represent for the Kyrgyz people a way to re-express themselves, reviving their collective memory and rekindling their dignity.[26]
Russian journalist Nikolai Andreyev, in his work Kyrgyzstan: Grappling with Democracy[27], provides an objective depiction of the situation following Kyrgyzstan’s independence, yet he critiques Western organisations offering development assistance. He notes that newly elected President Askar Akaev was the only new leader in Central Asia to pursue a democratic direction. Many criticised him for retaining so-called old guard figures in key positions. Akaev argued that in Kyrgyzstan’s complex clan system, people would not recognise new authorities, especially in the regions. The collapse of the USSR led to notable economic losses in the early stages of this fledgling democracy. Many long-established trade links dissolved, originally formed due to local economies’ dependency on the Soviet Union, and these connections were never fully restored. A notable example is the textile industry, which functioned somewhat independently in Kyrgyzstan but nearly disappeared following the Soviet collapse, costing the country valuable export opportunities. Andreyev also notes the emigration of minorities, particularly Russians and Germans, economic dependence on foreign aid, and religious radicalisation, especially in the south.
Another figure commenting on the post-Soviet period is former Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan, later Ambassador to Germany, Apas Jumagulov[28]. He describes the period of rapid privatisation, when a significant portion of state enterprises, properties, and land were mistakenly sold at undervalued prices; for instance, nearly half a year passed at the end of 1993 with no state salaries or pensions paid. Nevertheless, he views these events as a necessary evil on the path to economic development. His work reveals a strong bias and highlights the successes of his country, especially during the 1990s: The financial and economic situation of the republic is improving. This is the conclusion of many independent experts. Over the last three years (1995–1998), the republic has achieved major successes in macroeconomic stabilisation and restructuring the economy according to market principles.[29] He also glorifies the interventions of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which eagerly advised Kyrgyzstan as an emerging democratic state and provided loans.
In contrast, Joyce Connery[30], who worked at the American Embassy in Kyrgyzstan, offers a differing perspective. In his work, he also references development assistance from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, though he views it less positively than Jumagulov. Here, we encounter an interesting point mentioned earlier: while the Kyrgyz welcomed Western interventions in their economy, Connery, as an American, criticised Western organisations’ approach. Connery explains why foreign organisations focused primarily on Kyrgyzstan. As the so-called “island of democracy” in Central Asia, it became almost a model case for these organisations to demonstrate that a backward Asian country could join the Western world. As a result, Kyrgyzstan received substantial loans and incentives aimed at jump-starting its economy and supporting democratic reforms. In the early 1990s, Kyrgyzstan was considered a political and economic miracle of Central Asia, earning a reputation as a state with a rapidly developing civil society and open borders for foreign investors. However, this never materialised on a large scale. Investors preferred less democratic but more resource-rich states like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, which possessed substantial oil and gas reserves. Kyrgyzstan, with its rugged geography and limited mineral resources, never launched the anticipated economic boom promised in the 1990s. Western organisations could not abandon their model state, so they continued to support it. Paradoxically, this has created further complications for the local economy today, as there are no funds to repay earlier loans.
At the same time, the 1990s witnessed an exodus of Russians and other educated minorities, such as Germans. Between 1989 and 1993, some 200,000 Slavs and 50,000 Germans left the country. These individuals often held specialised positions, including teachers, doctors, and lawyers. With their departure, Kyrgyzstan lost a significant portion of its intellectuals. The reforms impacted the most vulnerable segments of the population—particularly the elderly, single mothers, and the poor (at that time, 70% of Kyrgyzstan’s population lived below the poverty line[31]). Connery also notes growing Islamisation in the country: The economic downturn, which hit the southern regions hardest, fuelled resistance to change and a resurgence of fundamentalism. Islam, traditionally strongest in the Fergana Valley, is beginning to play a much larger role in the southern part of Kyrgyzstan. This religious revival has led to disputes and even violence throughout the country.[32]
Eliza Isabaeva33 from the Institute of Social Anthropology in Switzerland focuses on another phenomenon in present-day Kyrgyzstan. With the loss of jobs, the rural population can no longer provide even basic sustenance for their families. They face large-scale national and international migration, with many rural residents forced to move to larger cities, particularly Osh and Bishkek. Many others migrate directly to Kazakhstan or Russia. This mass migration of the economically active population means that those remaining in villages cannot sustain their farms, leaving fields fallow and resulting in the feminisation of agriculture, where the women who remain bear the full burden of running the farm and fulfilling other family responsibilities.[33]
Theodor Tudoroiu[34], from the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Trinidad and Tobago, describes the political instability that has emerged in recent times. Northern and Southern Kyrgyzstan have many disputes and disagreements. This is also attributed to Kyrgyzstan’s unique hierarchical system, where the elite’s authority does not stem from executive, legislative, or judicial power. Due to the country’s geographic division by mountains into northern and southern parts, the north has been predominantly influenced by Russia, while the south has been shaped by Uzbekistan and other Islamic states. Akaev’s support base was primarily in the north, and his third candidacy for the presidency in 2005 sparked unrest and protests nationwide, ultimately leading to the so-called Tulip Revolution and his ousting. Kurmanbek Bakiyev, a former prime minister from the south, was elected as the new president. Many current government officials amassed wealth during their time under the previous regime; Bakiyev himself ranked among the 100 wealthiest Kyrgyz. After his election, he even appointed family members to significant government positions. The new (or rather, the old) political system came under attack from former Tulip Revolution participants. Unfortunately, they did not represent civil society but rather members of local elites and clans, many of whom had previously governed alongside the former president.[35]
Further unrest erupted in the summer of 2010, when clashes between ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks in southern Kyrgyzstan resulted in 350 deaths and 100,000 people fleeing between June 10 and June 14.[36] Many believe these attacks were largely fuelled by the fragmentation of political elites and societal divisions that ignited the ethnic conflict. Kyrgyzstan thus faces political instability marked by assimilation or, more commonly, the emigration of ethnic minorities.
Conclusion – An Evaluation of Everyday Life Across Historical Periods
The Kyrgyz way of life has transformed significantly over the years. Before the Soviet Union, Kyrgyz people were mainly mentioned by occasional travellers, scientists, adventurers, and explorers seeking new animal species, plants, geological phenomena, or charting previously unknown lands for Europeans. Their destination was not specifically today’s Kyrgyzstan, but interest in the region increased gradually. Among those who discussed Central Asia before Soviet times, a consensus emerged regarding Moscow’s growing influence and Russia’s interest in colonising new territories.
At that time, Central Asia was dominated by clans and tribes, with no state structure comparable to that in Europe. Observations of Kyrgyzstan by travellers at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries showed many similarities. They described nomadic tribes and clans, their traditions, customs, and behaviours. Henry Lansdell referred to them as wild nomads, who, although honourable and brave, could become aggressive and vengeful when seeking profit. Petr Petrovich Semenov discussed inter-clan relations and disputes, particularly surrounding marriage. In contrast, Ellsworth Huntington focused more on their natural environment from the perspective of environmental determinism, viewing them as hospitable nomads with respect for tradition and describing them as friendly and, due to isolation, highly curious. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Severtsev admired the Kyrgyz for their harmonious coexistence with nature.
Customs and traditions associated with food and celebrations were an integral part of their daily life, as described by these authors. In his book Exploration in Turkestan (1905), Huntington comments on the dining customs within the kibitka and describes the unusual practices he witnessed. Concerning religion, Lansdell, a cleric, noted the significant influence of Islam and occasionally Christianity, observing syncretism with elements of original animism.
Another recurring topic is the status of men and women in society. According to Lansdell, as nomads increasingly settled, the male role shifted from hunter to farmer. However, all responsibilities still fell on women, with additional tasks added. He noted the higher status of men in society, a tradition common among neighbouring peoples as well. Severtsev also recognised that while men outwardly led the family, women managed domestic matters, often holding decisive power. For example, historically, during attacks, women defended the aul (village), while men protected the herds. Although women held a lower social status publicly, in daily life, the reverse was often true.
During this period, Russian influence on Central Asia began to intensify. Lansdell mentions the trend of moving closer to larger cities, with men finding work in factories and mines and gradually integrating into a higher social class; meanwhile, traditional farmers were seen as a lower class. Huntington mentions in his work how advancing Russification helped the Kyrgyz by ensuring peace in the region, promoting trade, and making previously luxury goods like sugar, tea, bread, and fabrics available. On the other hand, he acknowledged that the shift from nomadic to sedentary life presented challenges, noting, as an environmentalist, the adverse effects on the environment, such as the accumulation of waste from stationary kibitkas, which would not occur with frequent mobility.
After the annexation of present-day Kyrgyzstan into the Soviet Union, daily life underwent profound changes for all its inhabitants. The artificial creation of states, which had not existed before (though borders held little importance until the Soviet Union’s collapse), codification of national languages, and creation of nations based on majority ethnic groups disregarded traditional clan and tribal structures. The transformation from a nomadic society into the Soviet model of Greater Russia was highly complex. In this context, both Eastern and Western authors often mention industrialisation and the creation of new jobs.
The transformation of Kirghizia (as Kyrgyzstan was then called) is documented in detail by Kazy Dikambayev, who served as the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Kyrgyz SSR. His brochure describes the beginnings of the Soviet Union in Kirghizia from a purely pro-Russian perspective, with information heavily influenced by ideological propaganda. On the other hand, Western authors‘ accounts, often based solely on reports from occasional travellers and immigrants, were not much more objective. While most academics and scholars tried to approach the issues of life in Soviet countries objectively and without prejudice, the general public was subject to entrenched stereotypes.
Today, experts criticise the media for the image they created of the Soviet Union at the time and for their strong influence on public opinion, which had little knowledge of the realities of Russia or the USSR. Such biased criticism led to the demonisation of communism and everything associated with it, denying the existence of any positive influences. As historian Peter G. Filene notes: Bolsheviks became bogeymen, at whom we could aim our prejudices and fears.[37]
In contrast, Geoffrey Wheeler, like Alexander Dallin, drew his information from Soviet sources but sought to assess all information objectively. He acknowledged that the Soviet Union brought many positives to the region. Like Dikambayev, he recognised the development of education, the arts, and even mentioned the expansion of organised entertainment into areas where it had never existed before. Rationally, he also identified issues that most Western media, with their anti-propaganda stance, overlooked. A special edition of TIME magazine in 1980 highlighted the disunity of the Soviet empire and emphasised the inequalities among its inhabitants.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, newly independent states came to the fore, opening their borders to political scientists, ethnologists, sociologists, and economists. These researchers focused not only on the historical development of Central Asian countries but primarily on questions of future development. The Kyrgyz are no longer viewed as “noble savages,” as was the case during Tsarist Russia; instead, Kyrgyzstan is now seen in the media as a developing country that is a relatively important player in the power dynamics of Russia and the United States. In today’s world, with nearly free movement of people and information, anyone can visit Central Asia and assess local daily life firsthand. However, available literature shows that the duality of perspective, much like the Cold War, has ended. While there are still those who defend only one side, it can generally be said that, regardless of their country of origin, authors write objectively and often in collaboration with local experts. Thus, the origin of the authors is no longer as significant, with many authors from Western universities being of Eastern or even Kyrgyz descent.
In recent years, Western and Eastern observers and media have focused mainly on the political situation and power influences affecting Kyrgyzstan. Ethnologists today concentrate on complex issues of national identity, while everyday life and quality of life are often overlooked. This is no longer unusual, and with advancing globalisation, Kyrgyzstan, along with its customs and traditions, is becoming more aligned with the everyday life we are accustomed to around the world.
[1] Nacional’nyj Statističeskij Komitět Kyrgyzskoj Respubliki. (Национальный Статистический Комитет Кыргызской Республики) [online]. 2012 [cit. 2012-10-21]. Dostupné z: <http://www.stat.kg/stat.files/din.files/census/5010003.pdf>.
[2] Nacional’nyj Statističeskij Komitět Kyrgyzskoj Respubliki. c. d.
[3] JANDOUREK, Jan. Slovník sociologických pojmů: 610 hesel. Vyd. 1. Praha: Grada, 2012, 258 s. ISBN 978-802-4736-792.
[4] Zde žijí lvi.
[5] Známé pod čínským jménem Ťan šan.
[6] V překladu Teplé jezero, leží v severovýchodním cípu dnešního Kyrgyzstánu, 668 m hluboké, v nadmořské výšce 1608 m, o rozloze 6236 m2.
[7] SEMENOV-Ťanšanskij, Petr Petrovich, Colin THOMAS, Liudmila GILMOUR a Marcus WHEELER. Travels in the Tian‘-Shan‘: 1856–1857. London: Hakluyt Society, 1998, xliii, 269 p., [20] p. of plates. ISBN 09-041- 8060-3. In KOKAISL, P. et al. Kyrgyzstán a Kyrgyzové: Kyrgyzstan i kyrgyzy. V Plzni: Západočeská univerzita, 2008, 309 s. ISBN 978-80-7043-772-8.
[8] MITCHELL, Laurence. By the Shores of Issyk-Kul. Russian Life. 2010, roč. 53, č. 5, s. 34–40. ISSN 1066- 999X.
[9] Skupina či vesnice.
[10] SEVERCOV, N. A. Putěšestvija po Turkestanskomu kraju. Moskva, 1947. In KOKAISL, P. et al. Kyrgyzstán a Kyrgyzové: Kyrgyzstan i kyrgyzy. V Plzni: Západočeská univerzita, 2008, 309 s. ISBN 978-80-7043-772-8.
[11] WASHINGTON MOON, George. Men And Women Of The Time Part Two. dotisk. U.S.: Kessinger Pub- lishing, 2005. ISBN 1417972564.
[12] LANSDELL, Henry. Russian Central Asia. Oxford, England: Sampson Low, 1885.
[13] Stanové obydlí podobné jurtě.
[14] KOKAISL, P. et al. Kyrgyzstán a Kyrgyzové: Kyrgyzstan i kyrgyzy. V Plzni: Západočeská univerzita, 2008, 309 s. ISBN 978-80-7043-772-8.
[15] V sovětských dobách se používal pojem Kirgizie, což je z ruštiny; po rozpadu SSSR se začalo více používat označení Kyrgyzstán, což je z kyrgyzštiny.
[16] LAVROV, B. Industrializacija nacional’nych respublik i oblastěj. Torgovo-Promyšlennaja gazeta. 1927, 6–7 (11), № 255/56 (1690/91). Dostupné z: http://istmat.info/node/23947.
[17] LAVROV, B. Industrializacija nacional’nych respublik i oblastěj. c. d.
[18] DIKAMBAYEV, Kazy. Fifteen soviet socialist republics today and tomorrow: Kirghizia: Complete transfor- mation of former backward colony. In Soviet Booklet. London: Stupendous programme, 1960. s. 30. Dostupné z:
<http://www.archive.org/details/KirghiziaCompleteTransformationOfFormerBackwardColony>.
[19] BAILEY A., America Faces Russia (Ithaca, 1950), p. 292 In DALLIN Alexander. Bias and Blunders in Ame- rican Studies on the USSR. Slavic Review, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 560–576.
[20] WHEELER, G. E. Soviet Policy in Central Asia. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 31 No. 3(Jul., 1955), pp. 317–326. Wiley-Blackwell. Další dostupnost z: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2607258.
[21] DALLIN, A. Bias and Blunders in American Studies on the USSR. Slavic Review, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 560–576. Další dostupnost z: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2495411 .
[22] SARNOFF David, Looking Ahead (New York, 1968), p. 267. In DALLIN Alexander. Bias and Blunders, c. d.
[23] A Fortress State In Transition Brezhnev’s legacy: stability, security and – perhaps – stagnation. Time. 6/23/1980, Vol. 115 Issue 25, p. 22–34, 13p. ISSN 0040-781X. Získáno přes databázi EBSCO:
<http://www.ebscohost.com/discovery>.
[24] MURZAKULOVA, A. SCHOEBERLEIN, J. „The Invention of Legitimacy: Struggles in Kyrgyzstan to Craft an Effective Nation-State Ideology.“ Europe-Asia Studies 61.7 (2009): 1229-1248.
[25] ISMAILOVA, B. Curriculum reform in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan: Indigenization of the history curricu- lum. Curriculum journal 15.3 (2004): 247–264.
[26] ISMAILOVA, B. c. d.
[27] ANDREEV, N. Kirgizstan: Grappling with democracy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 50.1 (1994): 44.
[28] JUMAGULOV, A. Kyrgyzstan: Despite difficulties, some old dreams are coming true. Executive Intelligence Review (1998): 50–54.
[29] JUMAGULOV, A. c. d.
[30] CONNERY, J. Caught between a dictatorship and a democracy: civil society, religion and development in Kyrgyzstan. Praxis: The Fletcher Journal of Development Studies 16 (2000): 1–18.
[31] CONNERY, J. c. d.
[32] CONNERY, J. c. d.
[33] ISABAEVA, E. Leaving to enable others to remain: remittances and new moral economies of migration in southern Kyrgyzstan. Central Asian Survey 30. 3–4 (2011): 541–554.
[34] TUDOROIU, T. Rose, Orange, and Tulip: The failed post-Soviet revolutions. Communist and Post- Communist Studies. Volume 40, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 315–342.
[35] TUDOROIU, T. c. d.
[36] McGllinchey, E. Exploring regime instability and ethnic violence in Kyrgyzstan. Asia policy 12.1 (2011): 79– 98.
[37] FILENE P. Americans and the Soviet Experiment: 1917–1933. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1967, p. 46 In DALLIN A. Bias and Blunders in American Studies on the USSR. Slavic Review, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 560–576. Získáno přes databázi JSTOR: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2495411>.
References
• A Fortress State in Transition Brezhnev’s legacy: stability, security and perhaps stagnation. Time. 6/23/1980, Vol. 115 Issue 25, p. 22–34, 13p. ISSN 0040-781X.
• ANDREEV, N. Kirgizstan: Grappling with democracy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 50.1 (1994): 44.
• BAILEY A., America Faces Russia (Ithaca, 1950), p. 292 In DALLIN Alexander. Bias and Blunders in American Studies on the USSR. Slavic Review, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 560–576.
• CONNERY, J. Caught between a dictatorship and a democracy: civil society, religion and development in Kyrgyzstan. Praxis: The Fletcher Journal of Development Studies 16 (2000): 1–18.
• DALLIN, A. Bias and Blunders in American Studies on the USSR. Slavic Review, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 560–576.
• DIKAMBAYEV, Kazy. Fifteen soviet socialist republics today and tomorrow : Kirghizia: Complete transformation of former backward colony. In Soviet Booklet. London: Stupendous programme, 1960. s. 30. Dostupné z: http://www.archive.org/details/KirghiziaCompleteTransformationOfFormerBackwardColony.
• ISABAEVA, E. Leaving to enable others to remain: remittances and new moral economies of migration in southern Kyrgyzstan. Central Asian Survey 30. 3–4 (2011): 541–554. ISMAILOVA, B. „Curriculum reform in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan: Indigenization of the history curriculum.“ Curriculum journal 15.3 (2004): 247–264.
• JANDOUREK, Jan. Slovník sociologických pojmů: 610 hesel. Vyd. 1. Praha: Grada, 2012, 258 s. ISBN 978-802-4736-792.
• JUMUGULOV, A. Kyrgyzstan: Despite difficulties, some old dreams are coming true. Executive Intelligence Review (1998): 50–54.
• KOKAISL, P. et al. Kyrgyzstán a Kyrgyzové: Kyrgyzstan i kyrgyzy. V Plzni: Západočeská univerzita, 2008, 309 s. ISBN 978-80-7043-772-8.
• LANSDELL, Henry. Russian Central Asia. Oxford, England: Sampson Low, 1885.
• LAVROV, B. Industrializacija nacional’nych respublik i oblastěj. Torgovo-Promyšlennaja gazeta. 1927, 6–7 (11), № 255/56 (1690/91). Dostupné z: http://istmat.info/node/23947.
• MCGLLINCHEY, E. Exploring regime instability and ethnic violence in Kyrgyzstan. Asia policy 12.1 (2011): 79–98.
• MITCHELL, Laurence. By the Shores of Issyk-Kul. Russian Life. 2010, roč. 53, č. 5, s. 34–40. ISSN 1066-999X.
• Nacional’nyj Statističeskij Komitět Kyrgyzskoj Respubliki. (Национальный Статистический Комитет Кыргызской Республики) [online]. 2012 [cit. 2012-10-21]. Dostupné z: http://www.stat.kg/stat.files/din.files/census/5010003.pdf.
• TUDOROIU, T. Rose, Orange, and Tulip: The failed post-Soviet revolutions. Communist and Post-Communist Studies. Volume 40, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 315–342.
• WASHINGTON MOON, George. Men And Women Of The Time Part Two. dotisk. U.S.: Kessinger Publishing, 2005. ISBN 1417972564.
• WHEELER, G. E. Soviet Policy in Central Asia. International Affairs (Royal Institute of In- ternational Affairs 1944-), Vol. 31 No. 3(Jul., 1955), pp. 317–326. Wiley-Blackwell.