Ecopoetics of Uzbek Prose in the Independence Period
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55640/Keywords:
ecopoetics, Uzbek prose, material agency, ecocide, ecocriticism, post-independence literatureAbstract
This article explores the ecopoetic dimensions of Uzbek prose produced during the period of independence, with particular attention to the concepts of material agency and ecocide. Drawing on contemporary ecocritical theory, the study examines how natural elements—land, water, flora, fauna, and climate—function not merely as background settings but as active agents shaping narrative meaning and ethical discourse. The phenomenon of ecocide, understood as large-scale environmental destruction resulting from human activity, is analyzed as a central thematic and ideological concern in post-independence Uzbek prose. The article argues that Uzbek writers reinterpret nature as a moral and cultural subject, reflecting national memory, post-Soviet trauma, and ecological responsibility. Through ecopoetic analysis, the study demonstrates how literature becomes a space for environmental consciousness and resistance against anthropocentric paradigms.
Downloads
References
1.Adamson J, Evans M, Stein R, editors. The environmental justice reader: Politics, poetics, and pedagogy. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press; 2002. 424 p.
2.Bekmirzaev S. Postkolonial tafakkur va zamonaviy o‘zbek nasri. Toshkent: Mumtoz so‘z; 2019. 176 p.
3.Bennett J. Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham (NC): Duke University Press; 2010. 200 p.
4.Berry W. The unsettling of America: Culture and agriculture. San Francisco (CA): Sierra Club Books; 1977. 234 p.
5.Buell L. The environmental imagination: Thoreau, nature writing, and the formation of American culture. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1995. 560 p.
6.Buell L. The future of environmental criticism: Environmental crisis and literary imagination. Malden (MA): Blackwell Publishing; 2005. 224 p.
7.Clark T. Ecocriticism on the edge: The anthropocene as a threshold concept. London: Bloomsbury Academic; 2015. 208 p.
8.Garrard G. Ecocriticism. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2012. 232 p.
9.Glotfelty C, Fromm H, editors. The ecocriticism reader: Landmarks in literary ecology. Athens (GA): University of Georgia Press; 1996. 418 p.
10.Heise UK. Sense of place and sense of planet: The environmental imagination of the global. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. 288 p.
11.Huggan G, Tiffin H. Postcolonial ecocriticism: Literature, animals, environment. London: Routledge; 2010. 272 p.
12.Iovino S, Oppermann S. Material ecocriticism. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press; 2014. 256 p.
13.Karimov N. O‘zbek adabiyotida mustaqillik davri nasri muammolari. Toshkent: Fan; 2012. 240 p.
14.Moore JW. Capitalism in the web of life: Ecology and the accumulation of capital. London: Verso; 2015. 336 p.
15.Nixon R. Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 2011. 464 p.
16.Oppermann S. From material to posthuman ecocriticism // Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment. 2013;20(1):69–93.
17.Qodirov A. Adabiyot va zamon: Mustaqillik davri badiiy tafakkuri. Toshkent: Akademnashr; 2016. 198 p.
18.Rasulov R. Ekologik muammolar va badiiy tafakkur // O‘zbek tili va adabiyoti. 2018;(4):45–52.
19.Slovic S. Going away to think: Engagement, retreat, and ecocritical responsibility. Reno (NV): University of Nevada Press; 2008. 288 p.
20.Yuldasheva D. Tabiat obrazi va milliy xotira masalasi // Filologiya masalalari. 2020;(2):67–74.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.

Germany
United States of America
Italy
United Kingdom
France
Canada
Uzbekistan
Japan
Republic of Korea
Australia
Spain
Switzerland
Sweden
Netherlands
China
India