Nostalgia Beyond Plov: Uzbekistan and the Lost Paradise Effect

Recently, I joined several public groups dedicated to nostalgia for Uzbekistan. These are spaces for people like me—those who miss the country’s one-of-a-kind hospitality, its ancient streets, unforgettable food, and the long conversations over tea. For many of us, these experiences now only come in fleeting bursts—during short visits every year, or sometimes only once every two years.

But as someone who studies media and discourse, I couldn’t help noticing that the conversation isn’t just about plov and fond memories. A deeper narrative runs through many of these posts—one that closely resembles the “lost paradise” propaganda technique.

A thematic analysis of one such public Facebook group—home to over 175,000 members—revealed several recurring narratives that collectively shape a shared sense of nostalgia. Among the most prominent are: the portrayal of the Soviet Union as the greatest country in the world; the notion that the Russian language is inherently superior; memories of a greener, less commercialized Tashkent; tributes to prominent individuals born in Uzbekistan; and fond recollections of Soviet holidays and celebrations.

Notably, the group also heavily emphasizes the Soviet-era ideal of the “friendship of peoples”—a multicultural harmony under the Soviet banner.

In contrast, current geopolitical realities are conspicuously absent: Russia’s war against Ukraine is never mentioned. The silence speaks volumes.

The lost paradise

The most dominant theme centers on a yearning for the "lost paradise" of the Soviet Union. Many posts express deep admiration for the USSR, often emphasizing how remarkable it was for the 15 republics to coexist harmoniously. This nostalgia is not merely abstract but is often articulated through vivid recollections of life during the Soviet era, portraying it as a time of unity, stability, and prosperity.

Within this overarching theme, several sub-themes emerge. (1) One frequently recurring sub-theme is the praise of Soviet products, which are often described as superior in quality, durability, and reliability compared to modern alternatives. (2) Another sub-theme revolves around the affordability and accessibility of goods and services, with members reminiscing about how life in the USSR was marked by lower costs and greater financial stability. (3) Additionally, the group frequently reflects on the peace and friendship among the diverse peoples of the Soviet republics. Posts in this vein idealize interethnic relations during the Soviet period, portraying it as an era of mutual respect and camaraderie.

These themes collectively construct a romanticized image of the Soviet past, shaped by personal memories and cultural narratives. They not only reflect individual experiences but also resonate with broader social and historical discourses, revealing how nostalgia serves as a lens through which members of the group interpret their present realities.

The 'glorious' Russian language

A recurring theme in the Facebook group is the consistent praise of the Russian language, often portrayed as a cornerstone of education, science, and enlightenment. Members frequently share passionate posts and videos defending the status of Russian in Uzbekistan, emphasizing its historical role as a unifying medium for intellectual and cultural exchange. For many, Russian is more than just a language—it’s a symbol of access to a broader, more sophisticated world beyond national borders.

The group also reacts strongly to criticisms of the Russian-speaking community. In rare instances where Russophones are accused of having lived in Uzbekistan for decades without learning Uzbek, such comments ignite heated debates. Accusations of racism are often leveled against these critiques, with members arguing that linguistic preferences should not be weaponized to question someone’s belonging or cultural integration. For many, defending the Russian language is deeply intertwined with preserving a part of their identity—an identity associated with modernity, mobility, and historical continuity.

This theme reflects the broader cultural and political tensions surrounding language in post-Soviet Uzbekistan. It brings into focus the complex interplay of identity, belonging, and historical memory—dynamics that continue to shape public discourse in the region today.

Old Tashkent

Another significant theme in the group is nostalgia for the "old Tashkent," often described as a greener, quieter, and more livable city. Members fondly recall a time when Tashkent was less congested with cars and characterized by lush greenery, tree-lined streets, and open spaces. These reflections often evoke a sense of loss for a cityscape that has since transformed, with urban development and modernization altering its once-familiar character.

Interestingly, while memories of the 1990s and 2000s occasionally surface, they are limited in scope and rarely idealized. Instead, the majority of nostalgic images and posts about Tashkent center on the 1970s and 1980s, a period often associated with the city’s Soviet-era charm. Photographs and anecdotes from this era are shared frequently, painting a picture of a community-oriented and idyllic urban life. These depictions align with a broader narrative of longing for a time perceived as simpler and more harmonious.

This theme not only highlights broader anxieties about urbanization, and the loss of trees. It underscores the role of nostalgia as a coping mechanism for reconciling past and present, offering group members a collective space to mourn the perceived loss of their beloved city.

A less prominent but notable theme in the group is nostalgia for pre-Revolutionary Tashkent and the era of the Khanate. Posts in this vein often feature old photographs, artistic renderings, or historical maps depicting the city’s gates, madrasas, and traditional architecture. These images evoke a sense of fascination with Tashkent’s historical and cultural heritage, predating Soviet modernization and urban transformation.

Unlike the dominant focus on the Soviet-era Tashkent of the 1970s and 1980s, these posts are fewer and tend to emphasize the city's unique identity as part of Central Asia’s rich cultural and political history. Images of khans, traditional attire, and architectural landmarks are occasionally shared, serving as reminders of a period when Tashkent was a key center of trade, scholarship, and governance.

While these glimpses of the Khanate-era Tashkent elicit interest and admiration, they do not evoke the same widespread emotional engagement as the Soviet-era posts. This suggests that, for most group members, the Soviet period occupies a more immediate and resonant place in their collective memory. Nevertheless, these historical posts contribute to a broader narrative of Tashkent’s evolution, offering a layered understanding of its identity through time.

Holidays

Holidays emerge as a major discussion point within the group, serving as powerful anchors for collective nostalgia and cultural identity. Posts frequently highlight significant holidays such as May 9 (Victory Day), New Year’s celebrations, and religious observances like Hait and Orthodox Christmas. These occasions are often framed as moments of unity, symbolizing the peaceful coexistence and friendship among the diverse peoples of Uzbekistan during the Soviet era.

May 9 Victory Day, in particular, holds a prominent place in the group’s discussions, reflecting pride in shared historical achievements and collective resilience. Similarly, New Year’s celebrations evoke memories of joyful communal gatherings that transcended cultural and religious boundaries.

The focus on holidays reflects the group's broader narrative of unity and togetherness. By celebrating these shared memories, members construct an idealized vision of a time when societal divisions were less pronounced, further solidifying the nostalgic appeal of the past.

Celebrities

Prominent individuals frequently feature in the group’s discussions, adding a personal dimension to the collective nostalgia. Posts often highlight notable figures who were born in Tashkent or spent significant parts of their lives there. These individuals serve as symbols of the city’s cultural and intellectual legacy, celebrated for their contributions to various fields such as science, art, and sports. Members also commemorate the major achievements of Tashkent residents, reinforcing pride in the city’s historical and contemporary accomplishments.

Additionally, the group pays homage to the lives and legacies of famous individuals by reporting their deaths, accompanied by expressions of respect and loss. These tributes foster a sense of connection to the city’s past, reminding members of its vibrant cultural and social fabric.

Beyond these reflections, the group engages with Tashkent’s current cultural scene. Posts often feature information about concert agendas and public events, bridging the nostalgia for past achievements with the city’s ongoing cultural life.

This blend of past and present reinforces the group’s role as a space for both memory and community engagement, preserving Tashkent’s identity through its people and their stories.

Silence over Ukraine

What stands out as notably absent in the group’s discussions is any mention of Ukraine or references to Russia’s ongoing war. This silence is particularly striking given the broader geopolitical context and the pervasive impact of the conflict on the post-Soviet space. While the group nostalgically celebrates the unity and camaraderie of the Soviet republics, it seemingly avoids addressing the profound rupture caused by the war.

This omission could be interpreted in several ways. It may reflect a deliberate effort to maintain the group as a space for apolitical nostalgia, where members focus on shared memories rather than divisive contemporary issues. Alternatively, it might signal the complexities of discussing such a polarizing topic in a forum where diverse perspectives and allegiances could lead to conflict.

The absence of Ukraine’s voice also raises questions about how the group’s nostalgia reconciles—or fails to reconcile—with the present realities of fragmentation and discord among the former Soviet republics. By avoiding the topic, the group implicitly sidesteps a critical examination of the ideals it celebrates, such as unity and peaceful coexistence.

This silence underscores the selective nature of nostalgia, where certain memories are amplified while others, including those tied to ongoing conflicts, are conspicuously left out.