Transformation of Ethnocultural Memorial Traditions of the Kyrgyz People in the First Quarter of the 21st Century on the Example of the Koshok Memorial Practice: Managing the Semiotics of the Radical Frontier

The transformation of folk customs in the context of the current stage of globalization and attempts at their controlled revitalization using so-called humanitarian technologies remain one of the priority areas of research in cultural studies. To this day, funerals and memorials are among the socially significant cultural practices for the Kyrgyz people. This study aims to identify key transformations of Kyrgyz funeral practices in the early 21st century, using the ritual of koshok (a funeral song and lament) as an example. To achieve this goal the following tasks were set: 1) to describe the key features of the memorial and burial process, including koshok, among the Kyrgyz; 2) to systematize scientific data on various aspects of koshok (social, psychological, axiological); 3) to identify changes in the studied cultural practice, considering how values and meanings have shifted as commemoration practices transition from traditional to modern forms; 4) to determine the possibilities and limits of humanitarian technologies aimed at revitalizing funeral and commemorative traditions in Kyrgyz society. The study draws on ethnographic data on the koshok ritual, autoethnographic observations, and survey data. The research relies on a value-based approach that allows the authors  to assess the social significance of specific elements of the memorial ritual. Grief theories are also incorporated. Observation and survey methods were used, and the emotional and psychophysiological states of the participants were analyzed. Based on the example of the koshok ritual, the study identified key vectors of transformation in Kyrgyz memorial traditions. It has been established that these changes are met with an ambiguous attitude and state control. Conclusions. (1) Koshok is a way of working with the collective and individual consciousness to master the phenomenon of the radical frontier between life and death and combined earthly and sacred meaning. (2) Currently, the practice of koshok is being reduced to its psychological, social and value aspects, gradually losing its sacred significance. Cafes and restaurants are becoming venues for holding memorials in contrast with the initially modest ritual feast of meat and bread. (3) The desacralization of rituals reflects the influence of social and economic factors of globalization on cultural traditions. (4) Nevertheless, even in its reduced form, koshok, combining verbal sympathy and material support, retains its significance as a grieving practice, confirming the public demand for the revitalization of this tradition, which is also supported at the legislative level. Further research into the funeral and memorial traditions of Central Asian states will help clarify the dynamics of the semiotic reformatting of this sphere and identify the relationship between the sacred and utilitarian meanings of the corresponding practices.

1. Agapov, O. (2025) ‘Struggle for Tradition as a Form of Social-Anthropological Practice’, Patria, 2(1), pp. 89–103. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/3034-4409-2025-2-1-89-103

2. Anarbekova, V. E. (2016) ‘Istoricheskaya original'nost' peniya prichetov (koshok — oplakivaniye v stikhakh umershego) v traditsiyakh u kyrgyzov [Historical significance of singing lamentations (koshok — lamentation in verse for the deceased) in the traditions of the Kyrgyz]’, Nauka, tekhnika i obrazovaniye, (7), pp. 80–82. (In Russian).

3. Bagdasaryan, V. E. and Grishkov, A. M. (2003) Istoriya pogrebal’noy kul’tury: tanatologicheskaya semantika [History of burial culture: thanatological semantics]. Moscow: MGOU Publ. (In Russian).

4. Bagirova, K. E. (2018) ‘Social and Humanitarian Technologies in the Society of Knowledge’, Izvestia of Saratov University. New Series. Series: Sociology. Politology, 18(2), pp. 174–178. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18500/18189601-2018-18-2-174-178

5. Baybosunova, G. and Dzhunushalieva, Z. (2024) ‘Transformation of Values of Modern Kyrgyz Youth (Philosophical and Psychological Analysis)’, Bulletin of Science and Practice, 10(12), pp. 512–519. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109/67

6. Belliveau, J. (2016) ‘Humanitarian Access and Technology: Opportunities and Applications’, Procedia Engineering, 159, pp. 300–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.182

7. Bowlby, J. (1961) ‘Processes of mourning’, The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 42, pp. 317–340.

8. Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (1987) ‘The Evolution of Ethnic Markers’, Cultural Anthropology, 2(1), pp. 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1987.2.1.02a00070

9. Bratersky, M. V. (2024) ‘The World of Fragmentation Is Changing the World of Globalization’, Urgent Problems of Europe, (1), pp. 18–41. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31249/ape/2024.01.02

10. Chumakov, A. N. (2017) Metafizika globalizatsii. Kul’turno-tsivilizatsionnyy kontekst [Metaphysics of Globalization. Cultural and Civilizational Context]. Moscow: Prospekt Publ. (In Russian).

11. Dombrovskaya, A. Yu. and Ognev, A. S. (2024) ‘A Subject-Activity Approach to the Typologization of Humanitarian Technologies as an Instrumental Basis for Influencing Public Consciousness’, The Authority, (5), pp. 37–42. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24412/2071-5358-2024-5-37-42

12. Dvornikov, E. P. (2015) ‘To the Question About the Semantics of Burial Rites in Ancient Cultures’, Mir Yevrazii, (2), pp. 36–38. (In Russian).

13. Fatkullina, G. R. and Karimov, A. G. (2020) ‘Strengthening of social cohesion as a mechanism for improving quality of life’, Sociodynamics, (7), pp. 25–38. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-7144.2020.7.33240

14. Ivanova, S. V. (2002) ‘The Funeral Rite of the Pit Grave Culture Tribes: Discourse and World Outlook Aspects’, Strukturno-semioticheskiye issledovaniya v arkheologii [Structural and semiotic studies in archeology]. Vol. 1. Donetsk: DonNU Publ., pp. 45–54. (In Russian).

15. Kazakov, M. A. (2014) ‘Humanitarian Technologies in the Contemporary Political Process in Russia’, Bulletin of Kemerovo State University, (1–1), pp. 88–91. (In Russian).

16. Kochkunov, A. (2013) Etnicheskiye traditsii kyrgyzskogo naroda: (sotsiokul’turnyye aspekty i nekotoryye voprosy proiskhozhdeniya) [Ethnic traditions of the Kyrgyz people: (sociocultural aspects and some issues of genesis)]. Bishkek: Institut istorii i kul’turnogo naslediya Publ, (In Russian).

17. Kolchenko, V. A. (2020) ‘Archival Materials on Archeology as a Part of Cultural Heritage (on the Example of Research Data in Kyrgyzstan)’, Fundamental Problems of the Humanities: Experience and Development Prospects of Rfbr Research Projects. Barnaul: Altai State Pedagogical University Publ., pp. 75–80. (In Russian).

18. Kübler-Ross, E. (1969) On Death and Dying. New York: Scribner.

19. Lamazhaa, Ch. K. (2013) ‘National Temper of Turkic People in Central Asia’, The New Research of Tuva, (3), pp. 69–83. (In Russian).

20. Lamazhaa, Ch. K. (2016) ‘Etnokul’turnyy neotraditsionalizm i etnicheskaya identichnost’ [Ethnocultural neotraditionalism and ethnic identity]’, Yevraziystvo: teoreticheskiy potentsial i prakticheskiye prilozheniya, (8), pp. 33–38. (In Russian).

21. Lamazhaa, Ch. K. (2023) ‘Concepts of Culture: Form, Idea, Social Regulation’, The New Research of Tuva, (1), pp. 6–25. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.25178/nit.2023.1.1

22. Lebedeva, M. (2021) ‘Political Organization of the World in the Context of Contemporary Megatrends: Scenarios of Development’, Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serija 4. Istorija. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija, 26(3), pp. 10–21. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2021.3.2

23. Likhotinsky, V. A. (2025) ‘Tradition as a social factor’, State and Municipal Management. Scholar Notes, (1), pp. 234–241. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22394/2079-1690-2025-1-1-234-241

24. Lindemann, E. (1994) ‘Symptomatology and management of acute grief. 1944 [classical article]’, American Journal of Psychiatry, 151(6), pp. 155–160. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.151.6.155

25. Madyukova, S. A. (2013) ‘Etnokul’turnyy neotraditsionalizm v globaliziruyushchemsya obshchestve [Ethnocultural neotraditionalism in a globalizing society]’, Etnosotsiologiyu – molodym [Ethnosociology for the young]. Issue 2. Ulaanbaatar; Novosibirsk: Institut filosofii i prav SO RAN Publ. (In Russian).

26. Moldalieva, M. I. (2021) ‘Historical and Genetic Approach to Studying Ethnogenesis and Material Culture of Ancient Kyrgyz’, Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal eksperimental’nogo obrazovaniya, (1), pp. 68–72. (In Russian).

27. Niyazov, N. A. (2021) ‘Globalizatsiya kak forma solidarnykh otnosheniy i yeye sotsiokul’turnyye posledstviya [Globalization as a form of solidarity relations and its socio-cultural consequences]’, Etnoistoricheskiye, pravovyye i kul’turno-yazykovyye osnovaniya bytiya sovremennogo cheloveka [Ethnohistorical, legal and cultural-linguistic foundations of modern human existence]. Ufa: Bashkirskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet Publ., pp. 225–229. (In Russian).

28. Orozbekova, Z. and Mylnikova, L. N. (2025) ‘Formation and Development of Research into the Kyrghyz Burial Culture.’, Vestnik NSU. Series: History and Philology, 24(7), pp. 119–131. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.25205/18187919-2025-24-7-119-131

29. Parma, R. V. (2025) ‘Humanities Technologies in Education: Antropological Turn in the Period of Digital Transformation’, Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University, 15(3), pp. 21–30. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2025-15-3-21-30

30. Parma, R. V. and Suchilina, A. A. (2025) ‘Discourse of Humanitarian Technologies in Modern Scientific Research: Russian Experience and Foreign Practice’, The Authority, 33(1), pp. 51–56. (In Russian). https://doi. org/10.24412/2071-5358-2025-1-51-56

31. Semenova, V. I. (2006) ‘Universalii traditsionnoy pogrebal’no-pominal’noy obryadnosti v prostranstve prostranstvenno-vremennogo koda (vozmozhnosti rekonstruktsii) [Universals of traditional funeral and memorial rites in the context of the spatio-temporal code (possibilities of reconstruction)]’, Tyumen State University Herald, (6), pp. 169–172. (In Russian).

32. Shatkin, M. A. and Orlov, M. O. (2024) ‘Ethnocultural Tradition as Heritage: The Modern Reconceptualization’, Russia and the Contemporary World, (4), pp. 190–204. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31249/rsm/2024.04.12

33. Shcheglov, I. A. (2024) ‘Humanitarian Technologies as a Field of Socio-Philosophical Understanding’, Social and humanitarian knowledge, (7), pp. 123–127. (In Russian).

34. Shchipkov, A. V. (2017) ‘Rethinking the Phenomenon of Tradition in Modern Social Science and Humanities Studies’, Lomonosov Political Science Journal, (3), pp. 38–43. (In Russian).

35. Slinkova, O. K. (2021) ‘Gumanitarnyye tekhnologii v servise: osnovnyye priznaki i podkhody k tipologii [Humanitarian technologies in service: main features and approaches to typology]’, Trudy Bratskogo sluzhashchego universiteta. Seriya: Problemy upravleniya sotsial’no-ekonomicheskim razvitiyem regionov Sibiri, 1, pp. 80–86. (In Russian).

36. Solomin, V. P., Mitin, A. E. and Vereshchagina, N. O. (2011) ‘Humanitarian Technologies as a New Form of Humanitarian Knowledge Functioning’, Izvestia: Herzen University Journal of Humanities & Sciences, (132), pp. 198–208. (In Russian).

37. Tatelbaum, J. (1980) The courage to grief: Creative living, recovery and growth through grief. New York: Lippincott & Crowell.