Adams, Laura L. "Ethnicity and the politics of heritage in Uzbekistan". Central Asian Survey, vol.32, no.2 (2013): 115-133.

Adams, Laura L. "Ethnicity and the politics of heritage in Uzbekistan". Central Asian Survey, vol.32, no.2 (2013): 115-133.

• The role of UNESCO programs, specifically programs aimed at preserving 'intangible cultural heritage' such as cuisine, handicrafts, dance, and music, in Uzbekistan are controversial as they raise questions about the pluralistic nature of the Uzbekistani state in regards to the roles that non-Uzbek culture plays in national tradition (115).
• Uzbekistan has registered four practices as intangible cultural heritage w/ UNESCO: Katta Ashula, a song tradition in the Ferg'ona Valley; Navro'z, shared w/ seven other countries; the 'cultural life' of the Buyson district on the Afghan border; Shashmaqom music, a tradition from urban Buxoro shared w/ Tajikistan (116).
• Shashmaqom and the Buyson district were two of the first nominations to the UNESCO list by Uzbekistan, demonstrating a deliberate attempt by the government to recognize Tajik cultural traditions. By including them on the Uzbekistani list, the government was also trying to deliberating emphasis similarities between Uzbek and Tajik culture (116).
• The people of Buxoro and Buyson district seem to recognize that their art forms are Tajik, but also seem to truly believe that they are part of Uzbekistani national culture and identity. The distinction between Uzbek and Uzbekistani is made possible by the government's separation of the concepts (117).
• Part of the difficult of defining Tajik cultural heritage within Uzbekistan stems from disputes between the two republics over control over the territory and history of Buxoro and Samarqand. The cities have been historically Tajik-speaking, but have at this point been throughly incorporated into Uzbekistani cultural identity (117).
• Attempts were made by Tajik scholars during the 1970s to address notions of Tajik identity through examination of traditions and history in Buxoro and Samarqand, however such attempts at trans-border nation-building led to complaints from the UzSSR and KzSSR about the dangers of building nations outside of republican borders (117).
• Tajikistani attempts to construction national identity through history and cultural tradition have been severely impeded by the fact that most historical sites are located in either Uzbekistan or Afghanistan. This has limited the potential of the government to construct a firm historical identity w/o exposing its illegitimacy through non-control of important heritage sites (118).
• Nationalism in Uzbekistan is constructed on three circles: an Uzbek nation defined by the essentialist trait of ma'naviyat, a multi-ethnic civic nation based on civil virtue [ma'naviyat], and 'Eastern culture' in rejection of Western and Soviet colonialism and values (118).
• The last trait of 'Eastern culture' has a tendency to create controversy w/ Uzbekistan's neighbors as that form of nationalism sometimes lays claim to a number of historical figures and achievement as Uzbek (119).
• The innermost circle of nationalism in Uzbekistan, that of Uzbek nationality w/ its essentialist concept of ma'naviyat, often excludes ethnic Tajiks. They usually belong to the other circles of identity, but feel discrimination and distrust for not calling themselves Uzbek, an issue further by low rates of inter-ethnic marriage (119).
• This ethnic identity is obviously blurred, however, w/ little emphasis placed in many interpersonal contexts. Scholars have found that people in mixed communities often have difficulty answering the question, as they see themselves as having two non-exclusive identities differentiated by language rather than any racial or cultural factor (120).
• The discrepancy noticed by the author in the Uzbekistani definition of national and Uzbek identity is that the elements of nationalism selected by the Uzbekistani government: moderate Islam, Timurid legacy, Turkic culture; are shared by all ethnic groups within Uzbekistan, which essentials defines almost all citizens as Uzbek despite linguistic and cultural differences. This sweeping definition of Uzbek-ness limits the scope for other ethnicities to express themselves (120).
• A history of the handicraft of Buyson district and of the Shashmaqom as an art form are provided from page 121 to page 126.
• Tensions between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan over organized crime and use of water resources have prevented more complex cooperation between the governments on issues of culture and art, although Tashkent has offered at several points it has been stopped by full cessation of diplomatic relations (122).
• Tajik cultural traditions within Uzbekistan have been appropriated and stripped of their ethnic nature by omission of any information related to a possible origin outside of the cosmopolitan, modern Uzbekistani identity. They have not been claimed as Uzbek, but are assumed to be Uzbekistani by lack of distinct. It this way, Tajik culture is sidelined and incorporated into a more robust Uzbekistani cultural tradition (126).
• Importantly, the government also ignores ethnic origins of cultural practices for Uzbek traditions. A very 'Uzbek' tradition such as Katta Ashula, is described in term of geographic and national terms, w/ no mention to Uzbek culture or language specifically (127).
• Language based qualities of ethnicity have resulted in a society in Uzbekistan defined by Uzbek culture, despite the artificiality of that ethnic distinction. B/c of the strength of Uzbek identity in Uzbekistan inherited from a Soviet legacy of essentialist and categorical ethnic territories, it is unlikely that an Uzbekistani cultural identity -- similar to the Qozoqistoni national identity -- will emerge soon (128).