Traditionalism, as a factor in the development of Central Asian society (XIX-early XX centuries.)

After Uzbekistan gained state independence, one of the priorities of the national historical science was the task of re-creating the true history of the Uzbek people and their statehood at various stages of historical development. In the process of implementing this task, the introduction into scientific circulation and the objective interpretation of a new source material has become important. These include an extensive body of research devoted to a wide range of issues related to the development of the history of Central Asian society in different literature on its periodization. One of the important theoretical questions of our time is the question of the level of enlightenment and cultural development in the Central Asian states in the XIX - early XX centuries. In the European oriental studies of that period, the theory of “underdevelopment and stagnation” of Eastern societies became widespread. This position was dominant in the historical literature not only in the XIX - early XX centuries, but also of the whole subsequent time up to the beginning of the 90s. Proponents of the theory of underdevelopment and backwardness of Eastern society, one of the arguments in its favor said that it was their traditionalism. Probably it was because of ignorance or unwillingness to know more deeply the essence of relationships within this society made a mistake. After all, traditionalism, being a truly specific feature of Eastern society, was the force that preserved its achievements in the sphere of production and culture, spiritual values. Traditionalism was the source of continuity between generations. Thanks to him, architecture, literature, poetry, music, calligraphy, ornamentalism, etc., continued to live, for traditionalism never excluded the creative development of content within the traditional form. And it was precisely because of tradition that the successfully found solution was necessarily passed on to the next generation. Thus, the thesis that treats traditionalism as a factor constraining the development of Eastern society is wrong. It is possible to make an unequivocal conclusion about what to call ignorant a society in which lively trade was conducted, there was a well-organized system of Muslim education, excellent experts in various fields of human activity, for centuries formed traditions both in the industrial and spiritual-moral spheres, means to go to cut with the historical truth.