{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014232209737827715, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.58128078817734, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Ethnic Atlas of Uzbekistan, in the Context of the Contemporary Institutional Situation in Post-Soviet Uzbek Ethnology

The study of discourse on the nation is extremely helpful in understanding different new Central Asian states’ legitimation methods and the scientific tools they use for their political recognition. The publication by George Soros’s [Open Society Institute] Foundation of The Ethnic Atlas of Uzbekistan, which does not correspond to strict official norms of ethnicity using a Western constructivist approach, provoked a heated polemic. Besides purely political reasons for discontent with Soros’s activities in post-Soviet states, the understanding of these debates requires consideration of the context in which Uzbek ethnology has been developing in the post-Soviet period. The discussion acquired not only scholarly but also political character in the country where public intellectual life is restrained and scholarly publications are rare. This testifies to the high politicization of ethnology, given that its terminology is still based on old Soviet principles. It also demonstrates the influence this increasingly rigid political system has on the development of science in Uzbekistan and in neighboring Central Asian states. Today all social sciences and humanities in the region are politicized to some