Adoption of state symbols in Central Asian countries in the beginning of the 1990s: main markers of identity
The official state symbols (coats of arms and flags) of the countries of Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) are investigated in this article. The Central Asian region is now in the focus of international politics, as this crossroad of civilizations is of geopolitical importance. After the collapse of the USSR, a society heterogeneous in terms of ethnic and religious composition became the scene of internal dissociations in many republics. That is why the identity policy pursued by the authorities had to accommodate the interests of both small and large social groups. The symbolic space formed in this situation became a field of reflection for various identity markers. Among the main symbolic indicators were the official state symbols, which assumed the role of a consolidating instrument. However, under conditions of time limitation (and often of scant practical experience), the design of emblems and flags turned out to be a difficult task. The study attempts to summarize the experience of designing coats of arms and flags in the countries of Central Asia, as well as to conduct their comparative analysis followed by identification of general and specific identity markers. In the study, the approaches of the social constructivism theory by P. Berger and T. Luckmann are taken into account, in which the coats of arms and flags are considered as “invented traditions” (E. Hobsbawm), that is, elements of symbolic space specially constructed. The empirical research methods are presented in the work by a comparative analysis of the heraldry and vexillology of the region. As a result of this work, the authors managed to identify the main identity markers: 1) “idealization of national history”, 2) “continuity relative to the Soviet period”, 3) “appeal to religious values”, 4) “appeal to traditional culture and mythology”, 5) “emphasizing the role of the leader”. A conclusion is drawn that a specific model of heraldry and vexillology has been formed in Central Asia, sometimes not corresponding to European standards. The symbols reflected those directions of the development of the states, which seemed to be of top priority for the new elites under the concrete historical setting of the 1990s. Sometimes the elements of different traditions and different ideologies were entwined there syncretically. The plurality of identity markers ultimately reflects the formation of a “hybrid macropolitical” identity in these countries, which shows the “identity crisis” that has not been fully overcome so far.