Narodowe w formie, autorytarne w treści. Budowanie państwa w Azji Centralnej

National in Form, Authoritarian in Content: State Building in Central Asia After the collapse of the Soviet Union the new states of Central Asia faced a challenging task of building a new country, its symbols, relations between institutional power and the sovereign and imaginary geopolitical landscape. The grassroots processes of national awakening were coupled with deliberate activities of the dominant political actors striving to shape them in a way conducive to their power claims. Thus the monuments of great ancestors and the billboards presenting the image of incumbent presidents became a very common element of the symbolic landscape of Central Asia's new republics. The official speeches of the governing presidents have frequently referred to great historical figures, constructed historical analogies, praised the thousand years old traditions of the fatherland and adduced historical evidence testifying ancient roots of the countries. This article is focused on the mechanisms of ethnocentric reinterpretation of the past. For the newly constituted republics of Central Asia, the evidence of the past power status and glorious moments or, conversely, the past tragedies has been an equally strong legitimizing factor both internally and externally. No matter whether invented or constructed, the propagated national values have played a key role in justifying the power claims and international position of the new countries. Additionally, the paper’s objective is to analyze how state structures and institutions implement national solutions and how the authoritarian logic of the state institutions performed its power under the guise of national forms

Između metafore i logičke usporedbe: Osobitosti figurativne usporedbe

В даній статті образне порівняння трактується як категорія, суміжна з метафорою та логічним порівнянням, будучи свого роду єднальним елементом між асоціацією (метафора) та аналітизмом (логічне порівняння). Усі три категорії поєднує універсальність та зв’язок з мисленнєвими процесами; спільним для метафори і образного порівняння є фігуративність, тоді як для логічного і образного порівнянь – експлікація (не)подібності. Водночас, в статті актуалізується низка розбіжностей між розглядуваними категоріями, що засвідчує наявність лише деяких точок перетину між ними.The paper treats simile as a category related to metaphor and comparison, being a kind of connecting element between an association (metaphor) and analytics (comparison). The three of them are considered to be universal and connected with the process of thinking with simile and metaphor sharing figurativeness while comparison and simile – an explicit statement of (dis)similarity. At the same time, a number of differences between these formations are stated, which proves the existence of only certain points of intersection between the considered categories with an emphasis on their differential features. In particular, it is noted that the difference between metaphor and simile, among other things, is the secondary origin of the latter, its ability to explicate comparative relations, to shift the cognitive burden on the producer, a wider potential of comparative possibilities, the ability to appeal to the imagination, using intellect, as well as its narrative nature. The differences between comparison and simile are the capability of the latter to create a special poetic effect by comparing conceptually distant concepts with the non-parity of the salient feature, the tendency to idiomatization and expression of prototypical, sometimes even symbolic meaning, the irreversibility and asymmetry of simile, the possibility of its convertibility into a metaphor, impossibility of its empirical verification because of the coding of the producer’s subjective reality, the ability to hyperbolize.U radu se figurativna usporedba tretira kao kategorija vezana uz metaforu i logičku usporedbu, kao svojevrsna poveznica između asocijacije (metafore) i analitike (usporedbe). Sve se tri pojave smatraju univerzalnima i povezanima s procesom mišljenja. U radu se navode i analiziraju razlike među tim pojavama, Ističe se primjerice da su značajke koje se mogu smatrati svojevrsnim prednostima figurativne usporedbe u odnosu na metaforu: ekspliciranje poredbenih odnosa, prebacivanje kognitivnoga tereta na govornika, širi potencijal poredbenih mogućnosti, veći imaginacijski i analitički potencijal te narativna priroda. Razlike između logičke usporedbe i figurativne usporedbe jesu sposobnost potonje da stvori osobit poetski učinak usporedbom konceptualno udaljenih pojmova s neparitetom istaknutih obilježja, nepovratnost i asimetrija figurativne usporedbe, mogućnost njezine pretvorbe u metaforu, nemogućnost njezine empirijske provjere zbog kodiranosti govornikove subjektivne stvarnosti te sposobnost hiperbolizacije