Download
Jafarov Telman
Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor
Baku Slavic University
Baku, Azerbaijan
e-mail: telman.cafarov.h@bsu-uni.edu.az
ORCID: 0000-0002-4429-654X
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15786796
Keywords: Turkic civilizations and cultures, cultural studies, Organization of Turkic States, Olzhas Suleimenov, Turkoslavistics
Abstract. It is necessary to take into account the reality that over the past two centuries, a field of science called cultural studies has developed within philosophical thought and humanitarian thinking, closely intertwined with linguistic, pedagogical, and psychological sciences, fiction, and history. In the integration of culturology with related sciences, linguoculturology, linguodidactics, ethnopsychology, multiculturalism, and other scientific fields engaged in the thorough research and study of the cultural diversity of the planet have emerged. In this context, the issues of the history of Turkic civilizations and cultures are of particular relevance, which have increased interest after the acquisition of sovereignty of new Turkic states, as well as the creation of the Organization of Turkic States.
Introduction
The fundamental task of our report is the problem of studying the history and culture of Turkic peoples within the system of world civilizations, Slavic-Turkic relations as a subject of research in Turkoslavistics – a field distinguished by the outstanding Kazakh poet and scholar Olzhas Suleimenov in his book “Az and Ya…”, published half a century ago, as a special scientific direction. The urgency of this problem is also dictated by the acute necessity of refuting existing conceptions and theories about cultural-historical types, determining the place of the Turkic cultural-historical type in the history of world civilizations, which will contribute to the formation of an ideological base for the Organization of Turkic States, which has transformed into a serious geopolitical, economic, cultural and informational platform. Determining the historical role and place of Turkic peoples and the pan-Turkic cultural-historical area in the formation of modern world civilizations: 1) will fill the lacunas in the ideas about the cultural development and diversity of mankind; 2) will restore an objective picture of trade, economic, cultural, and diplomatic contacts between the West and the East in ancient and medieval times; 3) will have a positive impact on all kinds of relations between Slavic and Turkic peoples, who are joint creators of pan-Eurasian civilizations and cultures.
Main part. Beginning from the second half of the 19th century, in the conceptions of N. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee and others concerning the history and character of world cultures and civilizations, about cultural-historical types, the Turks were represented as “savage” and “destroyers of civilizations,” and in the best case, were disapprovingly called bearers of “nomadic” cultures.
The term “cultural-historical type” originates from Nikolai Danilevsky, a Russian philosopher and natural scientist, who introduced this concept in his book “Russia and Europe” (1869). As a philosopher of history, N.Y. Danilevsky was the founder of the theory of civilizations (also known as the theory of local civilizations) and the author of the concept of cultural-historical types. In his work, Danilevsky identifies ten “fully developed” cultural-historical types: 1) Egyptian; 2) Chinese; 3) Assyrian-Babylonian-Phoenician; Chaldean or Old Semitic; 4) Indian; 5) Iranian; 6) Jewish; 7) Greek; 8) Roman; 9) New Semitic or Arabian; 10) Germano-Roman or European. He also refers to two American types — the Mexican and the Peruvian – which, according to him, perished a “violent death” before completing their full developmental cycle. Danilevsky also reflects on the prospect of a future Russian-Slavic cultural-historical type [Danilevsky, 2023: 121–122].
The assertions made by the Russian scholar raise serious doubts, particularly his claim that by the time he introduced the theory of cultural-historical types — that is, by the second half of the 19th century – “all other more or less significant peoples had not developed original civilizations.” Among those, he includes the Turkic peoples, who, in his view, “living in lands poorly suited for culture, did not progress beyond the state of savagery or nomadism.” Allegedly, “these peoples remained at the level of ethnographic material – that is, they did not participate in historical life at all or rose only to the level of destructive historical forces” [Danilevsky, 2023: 27].
These statements were made during a historical period when Europe and the Christian world were still united in their struggle against the centuries-long presence of the Turkic Ottoman Empire across three continents. This period also witnessed resistance not only to the political, but also to the cultural and religious influence of the Turkic state. At the same time, the Russian Empire continued its efforts to push the Ottoman Empire out of Slavic territories, with Russo-Turkish wars reaching their peak. Russia was striving to assert its leadership in these regions, while Europe remained concerned about the growing power of the Russian Empire in the Balkans and the Middle East. While acknowledging Danilevsky’s distinction between the Romano-Germanic and Greco-Slavic cultural-historical types, as well as his idea of a Pan-Slavic Union, we nevertheless find it surprising that he chose to disregard the legacy of the great Turkic civilization – a civilization that had, for centuries, closely interacted with and coexisted alongside the ancient Russian and Slavic cultures. [Jafarov: https://zenodo.org/records/12746138; Джафаров: https://mutercim.az/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/160.pdf]. Subsequent theories and perspectives on cultural-historical types were rooted in N. Danilevsky’s original theory, and their authors were significantly influenced by the Russian philosopher. The concept of the German philosopher Oswald Spengler concerning the decline of Western civilization emerged shortly after the First World War. Spengler rejected the idea of a universal world history and argued instead for the existence of multiple histories, each belonging to distinct, self-contained cultures that functioned as autonomous organic entities. He identified eight great cultures: Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian, Chinese, Greco-Roman (Classical), Arab-Byzantine (Magian), Mayan (Mexican), Western European (Faustian). In addition, he proposed the potential emergence of a new – Russo-Siberian culture. According to Spengler, the lifespan of each culture – from its birth to its decline – spans approximately one thousand years. Once in decline, a culture transforms into a civilization [Spengler, 2024: p. 39].
The English historian and theorist Arnold Toynbee introduced his theory of the rise and development of civilizations as a response to global challenges, just prior to the outbreak of the Second World War. Toynbee’s classification of civilizations was based primarily on religious and territorial criteria — specifically, the presence or absence of religious connections between societies and the geographic proximity to the place of origin of a given society. Initially, Toynbee identified 21 civilizations: Western, Main Orthodox Christian (Byzantine-Balkan), Russian Orthodox Christian, Iranian, Arab, Indic, Hindu, Main Far Eastern, Far Eastern in Korea and Japan, Hellenic (Greco-Roman), Syriac, Chinese Minoan, Sumerian, Hittite, Babylonian, Andean, Mexican Yucatec, Mayan, Egyptian. Subsequently, Toynbee revised the number of independent civilizations down to ten [Toynbee, 2004: pp. 77–79].
In the view of the authors of the aforementioned concepts, Turks peoples are often categorized either as “destroyers of civilizations” or as representatives of “stagnant” civilizations. The civilizations created by Turkic peoples are briefly and ambiguously referred to by generalized labels such as “nomadic” or “Ottoman.”
Nikolai Danilevsky, a staunch Russian Slavophile whose views reflected the ideas and sentiments of the Russian intelligentsia in the second half of the 19th century, advocated for a Greco-Slavic path of European development. He was dissatisfied with the prevailing division of the Eurasian space between the Romano-Germanic and Greco-Slavic worlds. Danilevsky’s contemporary, Konstantin Leontiev – a Russian diplomat in Greece – took a more sober and critical stance toward the Slavophile illusions of his compatriot. Leontiev expressed skepticism regarding the sincerity and gullibility of the Slavs of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, despite Russia’s efforts to unify them. He famously described Pan-Slavism as a “Sphinx-like enigma,” stating: “When we envision Pan-Slavism in our minds, we arrive only at some sort of amorphous, elemental, and disorganized idea…” [Leontiev, 1876: pp. 1–7].
As a counterbalance to the established views on Turkic cultures and civilizations, the scientific and theoretical works of the Eurasianists play a significant role. Chief among them are N. Trubetskoy’s book “Europe and Mankind”, as well as his articles On the “Turanian Element in Russian Culture” and “The Legacy of Genghis Khan: A View of Russian History Not from the West, but from the East”, P. Savitsky’s article “The Eurasian Concept of Russian History”, and the joint work of P. Suvchinsky, P. Savitsky, and G. Florovsky titled “Turning to the East: Expectations and Achievements. A Statement by the Eurasianists”. These works present compelling evidence and arguments in support of the immense significance of Turkic cultures and civilizations in the development and formation of statehood and culture in Ancient Rus and among the Eastern Slavs. In the same vein, the writings of the Eurasianist L.N. Gumilev have been brought into focus, reinforcing the importance of studying both the material and spiritual heritage that testifies to the coexistence and interaction between Ancient Rus and the Great Steppe. A special role in comprehension and substantiation of Turkic-Slavic studies (Turkic-Slavist) as a scientific direction was played by poetic and scientific-publicistic activity of Kazakh poet, researcher and thinker Olzhas Suleimenov. In our view, it was largely thanks to the persistence of the author of “Az i Ya…”. A Book for the Well-Intentioned Reader, Olzhas Suleimenov, that a new scholarly field – Turko-Slavic Studies – took shape as early as the Soviet era. Following the publication, dissemination, banning, and intense debates surrounding this book, discussions of its themes within the sphere of the humanities sparked a shift in how the historical past of the peoples living in the USSR was perceived. Even at that time, many in political and academic circles began to realize that Slavic and Turkic peoples – who for centuries formed the core of Russian statehood – had the right to know their true historical past. After all, this shared past, with its socio-political and cultural substance, had for centuries been a foundation for preserving the greatest empire in the world – its statehood, and its material and spiritual values. A vivid example of this shift is the self-admission of one of the staunchest deniers of the role of Turkic peoples in the history of Ancient Rus and of Turkic elements in Old Russian culture – Academician D.S. Likhachev. In writing the foreword to L.N. Gumilev’s monumental work “Ancient Rus and the Great Steppe”, Likhachev acknowledged the necessity of reconstructing the existing historical narrative of Ancient Rus, in which Turkic ethnic groups and peoples played a significant role: “And yet, a favorite and most rigorous approach – strict adherence to sources – is impossible without elements of reconstruction. L.N. Gumilev employs more elements of reconstruction than other historians striving for “average” conclusions, but that is precisely the strength of L.N. Gumilev. He possesses the imagination not only of a scholar, but also of an artist. Gumilev’s concept… softens the opposition between the peoples of the East and Rus, an opposition that still persists today…” [Gumilev (Foreword by Likhachev), 2000: pp. 9–10].
In two chapters of the book “Az i Ya…”, Olzhas Suleimenov successfully identified scientific and methodological directions essential for Slavic-Turkic studies (Turkoslavistics). These include the examination of the early history of East Slavic tribes, and of the Kievan and Muscovite periods of Rus’ life and culture, in inseparable connection and interaction with the history and culture of the Khazars, Pechenegs (Polovtsians), Torks, Black Hoods, and others – including the Mongol-Tatars – viewing these relationships as forms of coexistence and cohabitation within a shared cultural-historical area. In our view, Suleimenov’s desire to trace elements of Polovtsian culture and Turkic epic traditions in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was motivated by his intention to uncover deeper mythological, folkloric, and pagan layers within the text. Foremost among these are symbolic motifs associated with the sun, water, and other natural phenomena, as well as totemic representations – such as the cults of the wolf, falcon, geese, swans, and so forth. It is no coincidence that in the second chapter of the book, titled “Shumername”, Suleimenov deepens his observations and seeks stronger linguistic evidence for parallels between the Sumerian language and that of the ancient Turks. He argues that the removal of Turkic elements and vocabulary from The Tale of Igor’s Campaign deprives the text of its authentic medieval cultural-historical context. According to Suleimenov’s findings – which diverge from the positions of many medievalists – the manuscript was fortunate to have ended up in the hands of Count Musin-Pushkin, rather than a typical copyist or compiler-editor. It is evident that the text had already suffered significant damage during its initial copying in the 16th century, having been included in manuscript collections of that period. In the preface to the first chapter of his book, the author explains the reasons behind his interest in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, which he refers to as a Russo-Polovtsian cultural monument: “The Tale” is a kind of test that challenges the reader’s knowledge, worldview, and creative abilities – their psychological preparedness to engage with history; “The Tale” shaped my worldview… it introduced me to history and allowed me to see many aspects of modernity through different eyes; I abandoned the topic “Turkisms in ‘The Tale’ ” – I realized that narrow specialization is productive in mathematics, but not in the study of humanity; My natural bilingualism and knowledge of the cultural ties between Rus and the Steppe helped me read “The Tale”… [Suleimenov, 1975: p. 8].
The history of the composition and discovery of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” has long been at the center of attention for both Russian and foreign researchers and has sparked intense scholarly debate. Shortly before the publication of “Az i Ya…”, in 1963, historian A.A. Zimin presented a lecture at the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House), in which he proposed a hypothesis that “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” had in fact been written in the 18th century. The discussions that followed this presentation generated a wide range of conflicting opinions. “Skeptics” (a group to which the author of “Az i Ya…” would later count himself) found the meaning and core idea of the work difficult to grasp, noting the presence of many passages that “bear no relation to what comes before or after them,” as well as “utterly nonsensical expressions” [The History of the Debate on the Authenticity of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, 2010: p. 12].
A.A. Zimin drew on the ideas of French Slavists Louis Leger and Andre Mazon, who believed that The Tale was not an original work, but rather an imitation of Zadonshchina. Suspicions of authorship were directed at A.I. Musin-Pushkin, a collector of Old Russian manuscripts, and Archimandrite Ioil Bykovsky. A. Mazon regarded “The Tale” as a stylization composed to serve the “imperialism” of Catherine II [The History of the Debate on the Authenticity of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, 2010: pp. 13–14]. Without delving into other details of the discussion regarding the authenticity of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign, it should be noted that the arguments presented by the Turkologists and Orientalists N.A. Baskakov and A.A. Valitova played a decisive role in refuting the hypothesis advanced by A.A. Zimin and his French adherents.
They emphasized that A.A. Zimin, in his treatment of the Eastern elements in the vocabulary of the Tale, failed to demonstrate the scholarly caution essential to any serious research, being overly eager to prove that the orientalisms in the text were of late origin. By ignoring the full scope of the Eastern lexicon found in the Tale, he offered a weak and unconvincing analysis of specific terms (“shereshires,” “kharaluzhny,” “topchak,” and others), frequently relying on outdated sources and etymologies, and citing previous authors inaccurately. [The History of the Debate on the Authenticity of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, 2010: 615]. N.A. Baskakov and A.A. Valitova concluded that all Turkic words contained in the Tale are closely connected with the Turkic linguistic milieu of the pre-Mongol period. [The History of the Debate on the Authenticity of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign, 2010: 617].
The linguistic observations and textual analysis of O.O. Suleimenov in his work “Az i Ya…”, his literary interpretation of the Tale, his efforts to present the monument as an example of medieval heroic epic that intertwines pagan and Christian worldviews, as well as his concern with the neglect of Eastern and Turkic elements in the text – a concern stemming from the deliberate separation of the history of Kievan Rus from that of the Great Steppe – all form only part of the broader set of issues raised by the Kazakh scholar. Among Suleimenov’s observations and conclusions, one detail emerges as particularly significant: the attempt to identify the stages of deliberate detachment of Old Russian history and culture from the broader steppe cultural and historical context. As follows from his reflections, “the Church, even before the invasion, had already destroyed more than one work of Old Russian literature that glorified pagan gods or at least employed the terminology of pre-Christian cults” [Suleimenov, 1975: 22]. Why, then, did “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” become a point of contention in the historical narrative of relations between the Rus-Eastern Slavs – and the Polovtsians? O.O. Suleimenov offers a clear answer to this question: “the Tale” “recounted the deeds of a minor prince of Novgorod-Seversky, and of events that were, moreover, tragic – something that, in an era of general defeat at the hands of the steppe peoples, could not help but shape attitudes toward stories with such a plot… What was needed were works glorifying the former glory of Christian arms, telling of victories over the infidels. And for that reason, the Tale may well have been unpopular” [Suleimenov, 1975: 23].
As researchers have observed, the text of the Tale underwent three major redactions. In this regard, the author of “Az i Ya…” noted that we are entitled to regard it as “a monument of two epochs – the 12th and the 16th centuries” – and that the copyist must not be seen as a mindless scribe, but rather as a creatively engaged interpreter, editor, and, in some instances, even a co-author. He adds: “The 18th-century copyist (Musin-Pushkin) also inserted a few of his own clarifying comments into the Tale. These are easy to identify…” [Suleimenov, 1975: 50].
In our view, the three epochs highlighted here symbolize distinct stages in the rewriting of Russian history – its Europeanization and the progressive detachment from the Eastern and Turkic cultural-historical context. The first stage involved the “cleansing” of cultural monuments from pagan elements and from the Khazar and Pecheneg past. The second stage coincided with the rise of the Muscovite state on the ruins of the Golden Horde, accompanied by the revision of the history of the Russian Orthodox Church and statehood, the consolidation of the political doctrine of “Moscow as the Third Rome,” and the transformation of Moscow into the center of world Christianity. The third and final phase in this rewriting of Russian history took place during the Petrine reforms and the military victories over the Turks under Catherine II – developments that laid the groundwork for a complete rethinking of Russia’s historical destiny and its centuries-long entanglements with the Turkic world.
The theory of local civilizations developed by N. Danilevsky – and his conception of cultural-historical types, which was supported by the Slavophiles – ideologically completed the process of marginalization of the Turkic world. As a result, in the framework of Russian philosophy, no place was reserved for Turkic civilizations and cultures among the great civilizations of the world. Perhaps for the simple reason that the very acknowledgment of Turkic civilizations and cultures would have impeded the promotion of a distinct Russo-Slavic cultural-historical type within the Eurasian space. At the end of the first chapter of his book “Az i Ya…”, under the heading “Historians and History”, O.O. Suleimenov summarizes the materials of Russian historiography devoted to the history of Kievan Rus and comes to the conclusion that, despite the wealth of factual material and the frequent enumeration of borrowings, “historians addressing the question of Turkic-Slavic relations are fond of using the descriptor ‘in-significant’ ” [Suleimenov, 1975: 177]. He turns to M.I. Artamonov’s work “The History of the Khazars”, commenting on certain passages from the book’s preface: “The Khazars created an extensive state, waged a prolonged and fierce struggle against the Arabs, and succeeded in halting their advance to the north. With their help, Byzantium held its ground in its clash with the Arab Caliphate…”; “Khazaria, moreover, was the first state with which Rus came into contact as it entered the historical arena…” Sulei-menov highlights in bold the author’s phrase: “Three centuries of existence could not have passed without a trace.” Nevertheless, in the conclusion to this discussion, even while acknowledging that the Rus inherited from the Turks the title of khagan, which was assumed by the earliest Rus princes; that from the Pechenegs they borrowed the system of collateral succession – known as the “Yaroslav order”; and that from the Polovtsians they adopted the curved saber and many other elements – he nevertheless categorically declares: “and from the Itil Khazars the Rus took nothing!” [Suleimenov, 1975: 175–176]. As emerges from “Az i Ya…” and from O.O. Suleimenov’s subsequent investigations, Turkic-Slavic studies today should be understood as a distinct scholarly field – one grounded not only in philology and history but also in cultural studies, which serves as a “scientific synthesizer of a multitude of specialized historical and theoretical disciplines, reflecting the concrete experience and specific characteristics of human creative activity – its ideology, achievements, and methods accumulated over millennia of the epochs of savagery, barbarism, and civilization” [Mamedov, 2019: 24]. A cultural studies-based analysis, free from ideological, religious, or other tendentious worldviews and frameworks, possesses universal scholarly value. Today it is in de-mand both theoretically and practically for understanding the planet’s rich cultural-historical diversity.
Stressful situations constitute a significant area of concern within developmental and educational psychology, particularly regarding their detrimental effects on children’s learning processes. In the context of Moldova and Romania, a growing body of empirical research conducted by prominent psychologists such as Popescu and Ionescu [2018] has highlighted the multifaceted ways in which stress compromises key cognitive functions. Specifically, stress exerts a disruptive influence on attentional capacities, working memory, and executive functions — cognitive domains that are foundational for effective academic engagement and achievement. The attentional system, responsible for selectively focusing on relevant stimuli while filtering out distractions, is particularly vulnerable to the effects of both acute and chronic stress. Popescu and Ionescu [2018] report that stress-related impairments in attention lead to difficulties in maintaining sustained concentration during learning tasks, thereby reducing the efficiency of information encoding. Furthermore, stress negatively affects the processes of memory consolidation and retrieval, resulting in diminished retention of new knowledge. This impairment in memory systems, coupled with compromised executive functions — including planning, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control — substantially hinders children’s ability to engage in complex problem-solving and adaptive learning behaviors. Longitudinal studies reviewed by these researchers suggest that prolonged exposure to stressful environments during critical developmental periods may not only slow intellectual growth but also contribute to cumulative deficits in academic performance. These findings underscore the importance of early identification and intervention to mitigate stress effects and support cognitive resilience. The intricate interplay between physiological stress responses and neurocognitive development forms a crucial foundation for understanding the mechanisms through which stress impedes learning and for designing evidence-based pedagogical strategies aimed at fostering optimal educational outcomes.
Emotionally, stress exerts profound effects on children’s psychological well-being, often manifesting as increased levels of anxiety, reduced intrinsic motivation, and disruptions in social functioning [Marinescu, 2019]. Elevated anxiety resulting from stress can interfere with a child’s capacity to engage fully in classroom activities, leading to avoidance behaviors and decreased participation. Motivation, a key driver of learning and persistence, tends to decline under chronic stress conditions, which undermines students’ willingness to exert effort and pursue academic goals. Moreover, stress-related emotional disturbances frequently impair children’s ability to form and maintain positive social relationships with peers and educators. Social withdrawal and difficulties in peer interactions emerge as common consequences, further exacerbating feelings of isolation and lowering self-esteem. The bidirectional relationship between cognitive deficits and emotional dysregulation creates a reinforcing cycle wherein impaired cognitive processing fuels emotional distress, and vice versa, thereby compounding challenges in academic and social domains. This complex interplay underscores the critical necessity for educational interventions that concurrently address cognitive and emotional dimensions of child development. By integrating psychosocial support with cognitive skill-building within the school context, educators and psychologists can foster resilience, enhance adaptive coping strategies, and promote holistic well-being, ultimately improving both academic outcomes and social integration for children experiencing stress. Research conducted by Ciobanu et al. [2020] highlights that various external factors within the educational environment act as potent stressors adversely affecting children’s learning experiences. Among these, excessive academic pressure stands out as a primary source of stress, often stemming from high performance expectations, rigorous curricula, and frequent evaluations. Additionally, peer-related conflicts—such as bullying, social exclusion, and competitive dynamics—further exacerbate stress levels, negatively impacting students’ emotional well-being and their capacity to focus on academic tasks. Furthermore, Ciobanu and colleagues emphasize the detrimental role of unsupportive teaching practices, which may include authoritarian classroom management, lack of individualized attention, and insufficient emotional support. These factors collectively create a classroom atmosphere that hampers the development of a safe and nurturing learning environment. To address these challenges, the researchers advocate for the implementation of pedagogical strategies that simultaneously foster emotional regulation and cognitive skill development. Such approaches include dialogic teaching methods, which encourage open communication and critical thinking through interactive dialogue between students and educators. Stress management techniques, such as mindfulness practices and relaxation exercises, are recommended to equip students with tools to cope effectively with anxiety and pressure. Additionally, promoting positive student-teacher relationships is identified as crucial for building trust and emotional security, thereby enhancing students’ resilience and motivation. Collectively, these strategies contribute to creating a holistic educational framework that not only advances academic competencies but also supports psychological well-being, facilitating better adaptation to the demands of the learning process.
Moreover, the enrichment of vocabulary and the cultivation of clear, expressive speech play a pivotal role as protective factors in mitigating the adverse effects of stress on children’s learning processes [Rusu & Popa, 2021]. A robust and versatile vocabulary not only facilitates more effective communication but also empowers children to articulate their thoughts and emotions with greater precision, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy and confidence within academic settings. Clear and expressive speech enables learners to engage more fully in classroom interactions, reducing frustration and anxiety that often accompany communication difficulties. The development of these linguistic competencies contributes to improved cognitive processing by supporting more nuanced comprehension and expression of complex ideas. Consequently, children with well-developed vocabularies and speech skills are better equipped to navigate challenging learning tasks and social situations, which in turn alleviates stress-induced barriers to academic achievement. Thus, targeted interventions aimed at vocabulary expansion and speech clarity are essential components of educational programs designed to foster resilience and promote overall psychological well-being among students.
The integration of phonetic, syntactic, and lexical training in language instruction has been shown to foster communicative competence and emotional well-being, essential for coping with stressors in educational contexts. Finally, effective coping mechanisms, such as mindfulness exercises and peer support groups, have been identified as practical interventions to mitigate the negative effects of stress on children’s cognitive and emotional learning domains [Vlad & Dumitrescu, 2017]. Implementing these approaches in schools contributes not only to improved academic performance but also to holistic child development.
Conclusion
The systematic integration of Turkic civilizations into comprehensive frameworks of world historical analysis represents a crucial advancement in contemporary historiographical methodology. This scholarly enterprise not only addresses historical omissions and analytical biases but also contributes to the development of more sophisticated theoretical approaches capable of acknowledging the genuine complexity of inter-civilizational relationships across the Eurasian continent. The continued development of interdisciplinary methodologies, particularly those exemplified by Turko-Slavic studies, offers promising avenues for future research that can contribute to more nuanced and historically accurate understandings of global civilizational development. The implications of this scholarly reorientation extend beyond purely academic concerns, offering essential intellectual foundations for contemporary efforts to foster mutual understanding and cooperation among diverse cultural communities.
This analytical approach demonstrates the continuing relevance of rigorous historical scholarship for addressing contemporary challenges while maintaining the methodological sophistication necessary for genuine academic advancement.
References
- Danilevsky, N. Y. (2023). Rossiya i Evropa [Russia and Europe] (624 pp.). AST: OGIZ. (Original work published 1869)
- Gumilev, L. N. (2000). Drevnyaya Rus’ i Velikaya Step’ [Ancient Rus and the Great Steppe] (848 pp.). AST.
- Jafarov, T. (2024). Concepts related to cultural-historical types and «turkic civilizations» in literature. Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/records/12746138
- Jafarov, T. G. (2013). Drevnyaya Rus’ i tyurki: v literaturnykh pamyatnikakh XII-XVII vekov [Ancient Rus and the Turks: In literary monuments of the 12th-17th centuries] (267 pp.). Izdatel’skiy dom «Astrakhanskiy universitet.»
- Jafarov, T. G. (2024). Tyurkskiy kul’turno-istoricheskiy tip v kontekste diskussiy ob istorii mirovykh tsivilizatsiy [The Turkic cultural-historical type in the context of discussions about the history of world civilizations]. https://mutercim.az/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/160.pdf
- Leontiev, K. N. (1876). Vizantizm i slavyanstvo [Byzantinism and Slavdom] (144 pp.). Izdanie Imperatorskogo obshchestva Istorii i drevnostey Rossiyskikh pri Moskovskom universitete. http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/39950-leontiev-k-n-vizantizm-i-slavyanstvo-m-1876
- Mamedov, F. (2019). Kul’turologiya: otvety na vyzovy XXI veka [Culturology: Responses to the challenges of the 21st century] (480 pp.). Tsentr innovatsionnykh tekhnologiy.
- Sokolova, L. V. (Ed.). (2010). Istoriya spora o podlinnosti «Slova o polku Igoreve»: materialy diskussii 1960-kh godov [History of the dispute about the authenticity of «The Tale of Igor’s Campaign»: Materials from the 1960s discussion] (792 pp.). Izdatel’stvo «Pushkinskiy Dom.»
- Spengler, O. (2004). Zakat Evropy [The decline of the West] (Vol. 2, 655 pp.). (Original work published 1918-1922)
- Suleimenov, O. O. (1975). Az i Ya. Kniga blagonamerennogo chitatelya [Az and Ya. A book for the well-intentioned reader] (304 pp.). Zhazushy.
- Toynbee, A. (2023). Postizhenie istorii [A study of history] (798 pp.). Akademicheskiy proekt. (Original work published 1934-1961)