Dialogism of Turkic ethnic cultures of the Lower Volga Region in the aspect of semiotic philosophical concepts of the XX century

Usmanova Adeliya Rustyamovna PhD in Art History University Teacher, Astrakhan State Conservatory 414000, Russia, g. Astrakhan', ul. Sovetskaya, 23 adeliakult@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Currently, in the context of globalization and the actualization of various challenges that require special cohesion from Russian society, the issue of strengthening Russian civic identity is of particular importance. In this context, the key to the successful development and cohesion of Russian society is the growth of civic consciousness.

The multicultural space of the Russian regions with the interaction of various ethnic cultures contains a unifying potential. The unity of human culture, the interaction of cultures as a way to preserve cultural diversity, was positioned in the XVIII century by the German educator I. G. Herder. In particular, he noted the importance of each culture, while, from his point of view, the possibility of knowing their culture through the knowledge of other cultures "no nation has achieved" ^{[15, p. 87]}.

"Interaction", which is a two-way process, is applicable to multiethnic cultures and is a term related to the terms "mutual influence", "mutual enrichment". The development of each of the cultures is possible through interaction and exchange of spiritual values, when, on the basis of mutual enrichment, new objects of intangible cultural heritage are generated, synthesized into a single creativity.

Dialogue becomes the basis for the development of favorable interethnic and interethnic relations, a universal, all-encompassing way of interaction and clarifying the essence of each culture. Being an integral part of the history of civilization, the dialogue of cultures is the foundation for the development of interethnic and interethnic relations.

The origins of understanding dialogism go back to the ancient philosophical tradition. Research at the beginning of the 20th century (I. Fichte, L. Feuerbach) is aimed at revealing ideas related to the relationship between the "I" and the "other". Since the second half of the 20th century, the philosophers of the Tartu-Moscow cultural school (Y. M. Lotman, B. A. Uspensky, V. V. Ivanov, V. N. Toporov, E. M. Meletinsky) have linked the dialogue of cultures with the discovery of the diversity of cultural differences and with the search for ways to overcome them. The dialogue of cultures acquired special importance in the works of the Russian philosopher M. M. Bakhtin, who meant by dialogue the development and mutual understanding while maintaining "their own": when two cultures meet, each retains its unity, but is mutually enriched. The cultural dialogue is concretized by the philosopher into the concept of "polyphonism", the key values of which are multidimensional, multidimensional, polyphony ^{[6, p. 243]}.

The theory of turning to another culture in an effort to complement one's being is present in the analysis of the dialogics of the Soviet and Russian philosopher, cultural historian V. S. Bybler. Based on the theoretical provisions of the dialogue of cultures by M. M. Bakhtin, V. S. Bybler was the author of his own concept of philosophical logic. His theory is aimed at self-determination of the individual's personality, at the possibility of the existence of the spirit after the life path in the form of culture ^[7].

The idea of dialogic interaction of cultures in the historical context was picked up and developed by Y. M. Lotman. According to Y. M. Lotman, one of the most important requirements of the dialogue of cultures is the non-identity of the subjects of the dialogue with a common immersion in a single field of semiotic tension ^{[23, p. 14]}. Another undoubted requirement of dialogicality is discreteness, reciprocity in the exchange of information. "The need for the 'other' is the need for one's own identity, since the 'other' is needed precisely because it provides a different model of the same reality, and a different modeling language, and a different transformation of the same text," notes Yu. M. Lotman ^{[23, p. 585]}.

The works of D. S. Likhachev are devoted to the dialogue of cultures as a form of intercultural interaction. According to the exact definition of D. S. Likhachev, "Intercultural interaction is a favorable basis for the development of all types of relations – interethnic, interethnic, interpersonal ..., because by communicating, people create each other" ^{[21, p. 212]}.

The equivalence of cultures in dialogue in axiological terms, leading to a special kind of unity between them, is noted in his works by the modern Russian philosopher A. A. Huseynov. At the same time, according to the scientist, dialogue "does not remove differences, but in a certain sense exacerbates them" ... One culture looks into another in order to become more aware of its own identity ^{[16, p. 191]}.

In modern times, the issues of the dialogue of cultures are considered in a variety of disciplinary perspectives: in research on philosophy, cultural studies, religious studies, sociology, philosophical anthropology. The works of T. G. Grushevitskaya, V. G. Kostomarov ^[19], A. P. Sadokhin ^{[25, 26]}, S.G. Ter-Minasova ^[28], E. V. Khlysheva ^[31], E. B. Voznyuk ^[12] are devoted to the problems of intercultural communication.

In the works of modern cultural researchers, the distinctive features of the dialogue of cultures are:

1) the absence of a time interval, its possibility is only in the present, and

2) ambivalence, lack of one's own territorial affiliation, with a corresponding targeting to another culture ^{[12, p. 111]}. 

In music science, the problems associated with the interaction and interpenetration of ethnofolklor traditions, with the existence of typologically similar forms of multiethnic folklore traditions, have attracted the attention of domestic researchers since the nineties of the XX century: V. A. Lapina ^[20], M. G. Kondratieva ^[18], N. I. Zhulanova, N. Y. Almeeva, N. A. Krinichnaya ^[29].

Regional culture acts as a kind of integrator of ethnically heterogeneous elements, providing within a certain territory the possibility of fruitful intercultural and interethnic interaction. In a similar way, it implements a model of multicultural unity.  In this context, the relevance of research at the local regional level is beyond doubt.   

The traditional ethnic culture of the Lower Volga region has a fundamentally multicomponent polyethnic character. Nevertheless, the dialogism of cultures, as a result of long interethnic contacts and interactions in the multiethnic Lower Volga region, remains one of the insufficiently studied areas. Let's consider the dialogism of the cultures of the Turkic ethnic cultures of this region in the context of the positions of Russian and domestic philosophers.

The settlement of Turkic peoples, ethnic groups of Eastern, Asian (sedentary and especially nomadic) origin in the Lower Volga region dates back to the XVI century. Laying trade routes to Astrakhan through Mozdok and the Terek steppes, Georgians, Tatars, Indians, Iranians, Bukharans and Armenians lived here.

Turkic groups of the Lower Volga region: Yurt Tatars, Nogai-Karagashi, Kazakhs, Turkmens, Middle Volga Tatar settlers, whose ancestors belong to antiquity, were formed on the territory of the region during the XVI-XVIII centuries ^{[2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11]}.

The earliest independent specific group consisted of the Yurt Tatars (Karile Nugailar) – natives of the Great Nogai Horde ^[27]. Up to the 20th century, the Yurt Tatars and Nogai-Karagash maintained a tribal organization. The generic microenvironment was preserved and supported by the conclusion of intrapartum marriages.

An original group of Astrakhan Nogais are the Karagashi – natives of the Little Nogai Horde, who roamed the territory from modern Pyatigorsk to Astrakhan and settled in the province since the second half of the XVIII century.

By the beginning of the XIX century, the settlement of Kazakhs of the Younger Juz ^[4], who penetrated into the left-bank and then into the right-bank lands of the Volga, belongs to the territory of the Astrakhan province. A. Evreinov wrote about the tribal relations of the Kazakhs: "Since ancient times, the Kirghiz-Cossack hordes have been divided into tribes, clans, branches, divisions, villages" ^{[17, p. 39]}.

The mass appearance of Turkmens in the Lower Volga region occurred in the XVIII century and is associated with the migration of Turkmen tribes to the North Caucasus. As a result of the so-called migration waves: "Caucasian" and "Mangyshlak", some Turkmen settled in the territory of Astrakhan province. Their numbers were replenished throughout the 19th century. Turkmens were divided into two tribal groups: Abdals and Chalbar ^{[5, p. 12]}. Like other ethnic groups, they maintain tribal relations. The unity of Turkmen culture is "a rather late phenomenon that developed as a result of the merger of two main genetic lines of Turkmen: nomadic and partly sedentary, Iranian–speaking and Turkic-speaking" ^{[1, p. 154]}.

Joint migrations, semi-nomadic lifestyle, and migration processes contributed to the constant interaction of ethnic groups in the Lower Volga region. Communicative processes at different levels were the basis for the emergence of both a dialogue of cultures (between two ethnic groups) and polyphonism, multilingualism (between three or four ethnic groups). In turn, the dialogue acted as a way of relations between one culture and another environment, which corresponds to the position of both M. M. Bakhtin and Y. M. Lotman. At the same time, regionality, having localization, acted as a kind of supra-ethnic blocker, contributing to the preservation of certain bilingual objects, in particular, musical genres with their characteristic stylistic features. Folklore historian V. A. Lapin noted that "ethnic (ethnocultural)" ethno–cultural continuity and interethnic ethno-cultural contacts and interrelationships are two important historical and ethnic factors in the formation and development of local and regional folklore traditions and their specifics" ^{[20, p. 31]}.   

This is the possible explanation for the existence of two ethnic groups: the Yurt Tatars and the Nogai-Karagash – uniting the epic system of the Koshavaz/Khushavaz genre with common genre and stylistic features. The declamation of compositions, the stability of musical and syntactic structures, the narrow volume of ambituses associated with speech intonation, the retention of the last syllable note, and the diatonic fret base are dialectal structural features.  Note that both ethnic groups are local, and have both specific ethnocultural characteristics and the specifics of their own openness.

Following the position of Russian scientists and philosophers, the participants of the dialogue are united by immersion in a single field of semiotic tension. Considering that in the semiotic system, the categories are sign, language and text, we will single out all three as indicative in the genre of khoshavaz. In many samples recorded in the mid-90s of the twentieth century, stable melodic-rhythmic formulas and fret organization can be considered signs; the language is common, "intermediate" (according to ethnolinguist L. Sh. Arslanov ^[3]), different from the arrays of ethnic groups. Another important property of dialogue – the content of the elements of transition to another language – is also observed in this genre.

At the same time, there is an expansion of its own musical genre system. A certain ambivalence, the difficulty of determining the primacy of the emergence of this genre in one of the two ethnic groups, also fits into the principle of dialogism. At the same time, the commonality of this genre with its encoded semiotic features stimulates the mechanism of self-knowledge in each culture. According to Y. M. Lotman, the "other" is needed precisely because "it gives a different model of the same reality, and a different modeling language, and a different transformation of the same text" ^{[22, 23]}. And the regional cultural space acquires a unique integrity and dynamism of development.

Another example of the dialogism of cultures, in which such signs as the alternating activity of the transmitting and receiving, the development of a common language of communication, can be considered a unique genre of instrumental tradition, combining layers of musical folklore of the Yurt Tatars, Nogai Karagash, Turkmen and Kazakhs, such as sazda soylashu ("conversation in saz"). As can be seen, cultural dialogue is concretized in this case into the concept of "polyphonism".

At the same time, numerous variants of the tunes have common stylistic features: the predominance of a dance rhythm with stable typical rhythmoforms, narrow ambitus volume; in the fret organization – an equal ratio of hemitonic (diatonic) and angemitonic (pentatonic) frets in the volume of sexts, fifths, octaves formed by coupling of trichordic (large or small, quart) intonations; in The intonation dictionary is dominated by typical intonation formulas.

It should be noted that it is the instrumental and choreographic tradition that acts as an indicative sign of regional community, an example of folklore bilingualism of two equivalent folklore systems: the Yurt-Tatar and Nogai-Karagash. The commonality of the cue games is the golden cue, reflecting the name of the wedding evening of the groom's regaling on the bride's side, Ak shatyr – a white (wedding) tent; Cue halls – "dance of honored guests at the bride's gate", performed on the Saratov harmonica and a variety of tambourine (kabala), are the result of multi-stage ethnic interactions. At the same time, each of the ethnic groups retains both its local genres and general ethnic ones, characteristic (if any) of the main ethnic groups. This also indicates that not everything belongs to borrowing, but what corresponds to a particular cultural tradition. Thus, we can talk about both dialectal in the context of the regional community of related groups, and supra-ethnic.

So, when studying the synthetic genres of sazda soleishu "conversation in saz", the epic khushavaz/koshauaz, that structural genre-style unity is revealed when it is already difficult to determine the primacy and borrowing of tradition. At the same time, in each of the traditions, with some common characteristics, there are still specifically local differences. And in this case, this genre fits into the framework of folklore dialogism. The obtained research results act as a verification base, both to identify the identity of each of the ethnocultures, and the coexistence of different ethnic cultures in a single cultural space, multicultural environment.     

Thus, dialogism, as an indicator of the general culture of society, reveals the ability of one culture to master the achievements of another. Intercultural dialogue is an organized interaction between two or more cultures, characterized by a conflict-free exchange of spiritual values. The unique appearance of the Astrakhan region is due to its polyethnicity, which contributed to the mutual enrichment of cultures, when such a structural genre-style unity is manifested, in which "one's own" dissolves into "another" and vice versa. The accumulated research experience allows us to analyze with some confidence some musical and folklore artifacts of the regional culture of the Lower Volga region from the principles of dialogism. The dialogue of cultures, realizing the needs of interaction, mutual enrichment, mutual understanding, presupposes unity, according to M. M. Bakhtin, "the unity of all mankind" on the basis of the individual originality of each culture.