As the first presenter in this year's Faculty Lecture Series, Associate Professor of History Shoshana Keller delivered a talk on September 16, titled "Teaching History, Teaching the Nation: Narratives of time in the Usbek history curriculum." Her talk centered on the ways in which the creation of Uzbekistan in 1924 was promoted through the Uzbek education system.
Keller described how the Soviet Union decided that all citizens had to belong to a nation, whether it was one that had previously existed or one that had to be created, as was the case with Uzbekistan. The purpose of this division was to foster loyalty to the revolution, as well as to promote nationalism; according to Marxist ideology, nationalism was an integral step on the path to internationalism. Moreover, the creation of smaller nations would make the Soviet Union easier to govern.
With the creation of Uzbekistan, she noted, "no traditional identity markers existed anymore." Identity had to be recreated and redeveloped; essentially, history had to be rewritten. According to Keller, this process of creating nations was reflected in and reinforced by the Soviet education system. Education, she said, was one primary way to "take millions of people" who conceive of themselves in diverse ways "and get them to believe that they're Uzbek citizens of the Soviet Union" above their other social and political roles.
Beyond teaching national history to create a sense of national identity, cultural continuity through time, and loyalty to the state, though, Uzbek educators had the additional task of creating and defining a new country. Despite some problems regarding the portrayal of the Soviet Union and tsarist Russia, children in Uzbekistan, attending a small network of schools set up by Stalin's government, were taught basic literacy skills as well as a rigorous curriculum of Russian and world history and culture as interpreted through a Marxist-Leninist ideology.
Keller noted that this ideological interpretation itself was a drastic departure from traditional Central Asian worldviews of the time. When Uzbek history was added to the school curriculum in 1950, it not only included new facts, but was regarded in a completely different conceptualization of time. The Soviet Union adopted a Marxist and Western approach to history that was more rigidly linear than was Eurasian history. While Marxist historical approaches were linear, Keller stressed that Eurasian models manipulated history in order, for example, to explain the descent of local elites from the founders of Islam. The pre-modern Russian conception was similar to that of Eurasia, with the exception that geographical location was another important factor.
This difference in the conceptualization of time, Keller said, made it difficult to situate the newly-created Uzbekistan in history; it meant removing people out of a religiously-rooted time and establishing them in a secular history. She noted that "the secular template used to determine the flow and meaning of events erased large sections of Central Asian memory and replaced them with the historical memories of other peoples."
Accounting for this difficulty, Keller maintained that Uzbek educators also had to establish an Uzbek sense of historical continuity and political autonomy without creating a basis for political independence. To this end, a rigorous curriculum of Uzbek history began in the fourth grade. At this age, she said that students were told stories about indigenous resistance to foreign invaders. As students advanced through the grades, they received a more detailed education with specific focus extending from the Roman empire to early modern Britain and France and Imperial Russia. Importantly, Keller said, this account of Soviet history excluded Central Asia and the entire Muslim world.
Under the Khrushchev educational reforms in 1958, the history curriculum was to be altered to include the local histories of each Soviet state, fostering an Uzbek national identity and a sense of citizenship within the Soviet Union. Teaching Uzbek history, however, as Keller noted, also meant determining exactly what the boundaries of that history were. Ultimately, Uzbek children were taught to identify both with Uzbek as well as Russian culture and history, and teachers stressed and perhaps exaggerated commonalities between the two groups.
Significantly, Keller pointed out, this education stretched the limits of both time and space to create an Uzbek history. While not entirely fabricated, Uzbek history incorporated some "borrowed evidence," as Keller said, and some stretched details in order to be manipulated into a linear sense of time, to adhere to a secular sense of achievements independent of Islam, and also to create a sense of Uzbek continuity.
Keller's talk was sponsored by the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs and by the Dean of the Faculty. It was followed by a reception at Café Opus.
-- by Sarah Lozo '06
Keller described how the Soviet Union decided that all citizens had to belong to a nation, whether it was one that had previously existed or one that had to be created, as was the case with Uzbekistan. The purpose of this division was to foster loyalty to the revolution, as well as to promote nationalism; according to Marxist ideology, nationalism was an integral step on the path to internationalism. Moreover, the creation of smaller nations would make the Soviet Union easier to govern.
With the creation of Uzbekistan, she noted, "no traditional identity markers existed anymore." Identity had to be recreated and redeveloped; essentially, history had to be rewritten. According to Keller, this process of creating nations was reflected in and reinforced by the Soviet education system. Education, she said, was one primary way to "take millions of people" who conceive of themselves in diverse ways "and get them to believe that they're Uzbek citizens of the Soviet Union" above their other social and political roles.
Beyond teaching national history to create a sense of national identity, cultural continuity through time, and loyalty to the state, though, Uzbek educators had the additional task of creating and defining a new country. Despite some problems regarding the portrayal of the Soviet Union and tsarist Russia, children in Uzbekistan, attending a small network of schools set up by Stalin's government, were taught basic literacy skills as well as a rigorous curriculum of Russian and world history and culture as interpreted through a Marxist-Leninist ideology.
Keller noted that this ideological interpretation itself was a drastic departure from traditional Central Asian worldviews of the time. When Uzbek history was added to the school curriculum in 1950, it not only included new facts, but was regarded in a completely different conceptualization of time. The Soviet Union adopted a Marxist and Western approach to history that was more rigidly linear than was Eurasian history. While Marxist historical approaches were linear, Keller stressed that Eurasian models manipulated history in order, for example, to explain the descent of local elites from the founders of Islam. The pre-modern Russian conception was similar to that of Eurasia, with the exception that geographical location was another important factor.
This difference in the conceptualization of time, Keller said, made it difficult to situate the newly-created Uzbekistan in history; it meant removing people out of a religiously-rooted time and establishing them in a secular history. She noted that "the secular template used to determine the flow and meaning of events erased large sections of Central Asian memory and replaced them with the historical memories of other peoples."
Accounting for this difficulty, Keller maintained that Uzbek educators also had to establish an Uzbek sense of historical continuity and political autonomy without creating a basis for political independence. To this end, a rigorous curriculum of Uzbek history began in the fourth grade. At this age, she said that students were told stories about indigenous resistance to foreign invaders. As students advanced through the grades, they received a more detailed education with specific focus extending from the Roman empire to early modern Britain and France and Imperial Russia. Importantly, Keller said, this account of Soviet history excluded Central Asia and the entire Muslim world.
Under the Khrushchev educational reforms in 1958, the history curriculum was to be altered to include the local histories of each Soviet state, fostering an Uzbek national identity and a sense of citizenship within the Soviet Union. Teaching Uzbek history, however, as Keller noted, also meant determining exactly what the boundaries of that history were. Ultimately, Uzbek children were taught to identify both with Uzbek as well as Russian culture and history, and teachers stressed and perhaps exaggerated commonalities between the two groups.
Significantly, Keller pointed out, this education stretched the limits of both time and space to create an Uzbek history. While not entirely fabricated, Uzbek history incorporated some "borrowed evidence," as Keller said, and some stretched details in order to be manipulated into a linear sense of time, to adhere to a secular sense of achievements independent of Islam, and also to create a sense of Uzbek continuity.
Keller's talk was sponsored by the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs and by the Dean of the Faculty. It was followed by a reception at Café Opus.
-- by Sarah Lozo '06
