Editor2018 at 18:15, 25 November 2022

2022-11-25T18:15:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:15, 25 November 2022
Line 42:		Line 42:

	''Koshumcha'', then, is an ambivalent social norm that both enables and constrains by creating a lock-in effect on the basis of kinship, social status, or network interests (see Ledeneva et. al. 2018). Embedded in norms and traditions of reciprocity and solidarity, ''koshumcha'' reinforces social ties but also creates a perpetual circle of economic and social obligations. ''Koshumcha'' is a ‘total service’(Mauss 1950), as it pervades all aspects of society, and its logic is dictated at the same time by self-interest and solidarity. ''Koshumcha'' is characterized by a high degree of ambivalence: it is both a practice of social solidarity and redistribution, while also a financial and moral burden for poorer families. The changing nature of ''koshumcha'' from reciprocity and mutual help to tools used to create influential networks is the result of a new moral economy where neoliberal principles and traditions related to the celebration of life-cycle events meet.		''Koshumcha'', then, is an ambivalent social norm that both enables and constrains by creating a lock-in effect on the basis of kinship, social status, or network interests (see Ledeneva et. al. 2018). Embedded in norms and traditions of reciprocity and solidarity, ''koshumcha'' reinforces social ties but also creates a perpetual circle of economic and social obligations. ''Koshumcha'' is a ‘total service’(Mauss 1950), as it pervades all aspects of society, and its logic is dictated at the same time by self-interest and solidarity. ''Koshumcha'' is characterized by a high degree of ambivalence: it is both a practice of social solidarity and redistribution, while also a financial and moral burden for poorer families. The changing nature of ''koshumcha'' from reciprocity and mutual help to tools used to create influential networks is the result of a new moral economy where neoliberal principles and traditions related to the celebration of life-cycle events meet.

			==Funding==
			This research was realized as part of the EU Commission Horizon2020 MSCA Innovative Training Networks (MSCA-ITN) project MARKETS: Mapping Uncertainties, Challenges and Future Opportunities of Emerging Markets: Informal Barriers, Business Environments and Future Trends in Eastern Europe, The Caucasus and Central Asia, Grant agreement ID: 861034.

	==References==		==References==

Admin at 10:58, 3 November 2022

2022-11-03T10:58:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:58, 3 November 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{infobox		{{infobox
	\| nameofpractice = Koshumcha		\| nameofpractice = Koshumcha
	\| flagemoji = 🇰🇿		\| flagemoji = 🇰🇬
	\| definition = Contribution given on important social celebrations		\| definition = Contribution given on important social celebrations
	\| location = Kyrgyzstan		\| location = Kyrgyzstan

Admin: Created page with "{{infobox | nameofpractice = Koshumcha | flagemoji = 🇰🇿 | definition = Contribution given on important social celebrations | location = Kyrgyzstan | imagemap = Kyrgyzsta..."

2022-11-01T16:35:59Z

Created page with "{{infobox | nameofpractice = Koshumcha | flagemoji = 🇰🇿 | definition = Contribution given on important social celebrations | location = Kyrgyzstan | imagemap = Kyrgyzsta..."

New page

{{infobox
| nameofpractice = Koshumcha
| flagemoji = 🇰🇿
| definition = Contribution given on important social celebrations
| location = Kyrgyzstan
| imagemap = Kyrgyzstan map.png
| clusters = [[:Category: Solidarity|Solidarity]] – [[:Category: Market| Market]]
| categories = [[:Category: Kyrgyzstan|Kyrgyzstan]] – [[:Category: FSU| FSU]] – [[:Category: Central Asia| Central Asia]] – [[:Category: Mutual help| Mutual help]] – [[:Category: Solidarity| Solidarity]] – [[:Category: Reciprocity| Reciprocity]] – [[:Category: Public service| Public service]] – [[:Category: Problem-solving| Problem-solving]] – [[:Category: Need| Need]]
| authorofpiece = Eugenia Pesci
| authorinstitution = PhD student, Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki, Finland
| authorwebsite =
}}
<big>'''By Eugenia Pesci, PhD student, Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki, Finland'''</big>
[[Category: Solidarity]]
[[Category: Market]]
[[Category: Kyrgyzstan]]
[[Category: FSU]]
[[Category: Central Asia]]
[[Category: Mutual help]]
[[Category: Solidarity]]
[[Category: Reciprocity]]
[[Category: Public service]]
[[Category: Problem-solving]]
[[Category: Need]]
[[Category: Entry]]
[[Category: 2022 entry]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|style="font-size:1.1em;"| The word ''koshumcha'' can be translated from Kyrgyz as ‘additional’. It refers to contributions provided to the organisers of collective celebrations (''toilor'') and memorial events. It can also indicate any kind of assistance to the groom in paying the ''[[kalym]]'' (bride prize), or the gifts part of the ''kalym'' that are donated by the groom's parents on his first visit to the bride's parents; the latter, in turn, with the help of contributions from relatives reciprocate the gifts to the groom's parents (Yudachin 1985).
|}

In Kyrgyzstan, ''koshumcha'' is donated at both joyous celebrations (''zhakshylyk'') and mourning rituals (''zhamandyk''), including: weddings (''uilonuu toi''); so-called ‘bride farewells’ (''kyz uzatuu''); births (''beshek toi''); circumcisions (''sünnöt toi''): first birthdays (''tush¬oo toi''); and meals for relatives and neighbours (''ash'') organised to mark death anniversaries or other meaningful events. All these celebrations and collective social obligations are part of the Kyrgyz customary law (''salt'') (Reeves 2012:129). Within the ritual economy related to life-cycle events, ''koshumcha'' is an important informal practice for maintaining social relations. Despite its similarities to other gift-giving practices, ''koshumcha'' is understood as a form of solidarity and mutual help that mobilizes social relationships, similar to ''[[pujogǔm]]'' and ''[[hongbao]]''.

The origins of ''koshumcha'' are unclear but are likely connected to nomadic mourning rituals, where cattle or other goods were donated to the family of the deceased as a form of material support. Kyrgyz used to judge the importance of the deceased based on the degree of organisation of the funeral and the solidarity of the relatives (Abdubaitova 2018). During the Soviet period, ''koshumcha'' was mainly expressed through gifting consumer goods and commodities hard to find in the planned economy, and traditional hand-made Kyrgyz clothing, like the ''chapan'' (winter clothing) (see Turdalieva and Provis 2017: 203). The collapse of the Soviet Union and the transition to a market economy resulted in the emergence of new values shaping more complex social relations, beyond kinship solidarity and support (Turdalieva and Provis 2017: 204). On the background of dramatic economic hardships, mass migration, and low state capacity, neoliberal values were met by the revival of pre-Soviet nomadic traditions, including the celebration of life cycle events where ''koshumcha'' is donated.

While gifting clothes, jewelry, and furniture is still practised, giving ''koshumcha'' ‘in the envelope’ is now very popular in Kyrgyzstan. Unlike other forms of money gifts, ''koshumcha'' is more a contribution to cover the costs borne by the family organising the celebration, a kind of interest-free loan among one’s social network, since those who visit the ''toi'' constantly owe money, or other people owe them. Guests put ''koshumcha'' in a closed envelope with their name on it and hand it to a designated person (usually a male member of the groom’s family), who writes down the name of the guest on a notebook and the amount of donated money. Likewise, people who give ''koshumcha'' keep a record of to whom, when, and how much money they had contributed. In this way, they can estimate how much will be returned to them once they will organise a ''toi''. In calculating the amount of ''koshumcha'', guests usually need to consider inflation and the exchange rate between the Kyrgyz some and the US dollar. The reciprocity principle at the basis of ''koshumcha'' is based on mutual trust, but there is always a risk of receiving less or nothing, which means a financial loss for the family organising the celebration, and the shaming of the relative who could not give the suitable amount of money expected from him/her. Sometimes, guests who cannot afford to give ''koshumcha'' write the word ''karyz'' (debt) in the envelope, meaning that they remain indebted to the family organising the ''toi'' until they are able to make their contribution. This is made in order not to ‘lose one’s face’ in front of other guests (Erkebaeva 2018), since refusing an invitation to a ''toi'' is considered a shame and a source of embarrassment (''uiat''). As pointed out by Reeves (2012:110), the ritual economy around life-cycle celebrations in Kyrgyzstan is sustained by remittances. Thus, many young people are pushed into labour migration so that the family can afford a ''toi'' and give the necessary amount of ''koshumcha'', since not taking part in these forms of social obligations is considered shameful and described as ‘leaving kinship’ (see Eidson 2017).

''Koshumcha'' is, hence, embedded in social relations, norms and traditions and it rests upon mutual obligations and expectations (see Granovetter 1985). Since the amount of the contribution towards the family’s expenses depends on the degree of kinship, social and material well-being, as well as social and emotional distance (Kochkunov 2018), ''koshumcha'' can be a way to determine the strength of ties between givers and receivers. However, new values brought by the market economy and neo-liberal ideals are rapidly changing the way ''koshumcha'' and ''toi'' are experienced, especially among the better-off urban middle class, also called the ‘new Kyrgyz’(see Provis 2015). ''Toi'' invitations and ''koshumcha'' then become useful instruments in building strategic relationships with influential acquaintances while excluding poorer, but closer members of the network. This contributes to the emergence of new patterns of social relationship construction, which can further deepen the economic and social gaps between urban and rural population.

Despite its importance for maintaining social relations, ''koshumcha'' and the entire ritual economy related to ''toi''-making is often criticized because of the financial burden imposed on households. In February 2020, the independent online media outlet Kloop conducted a survey on ''koshumcha'' among 400 respondents across Kyrgyzstan. The answers showed that most of the respondents still give ''koshumcha'' and are willing to give their last resources for it. According to the estimates of the survey, 62 percent of the average monthly living wage of a Kyrgyz household is spent on ''koshumcha'' (Tologonova 2020). Nowadays, the average amount of money for ''koshumcha'' at weddings is around 50 USD, but in big cities like Bishkek and Osh it can be more than 100 USD. These are extremely high sums for most Kyrgyz families, especially when considering that the average wage in 2020 was around 19 thousand soms (around 224 USD) (National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic n.d.). ''Koshumcha'' can become a real poverty trap as confirmed by respondents: those earning up to 20 thousand soms per month (240 USD) declared to spend about 35 thousand soms (412 USD) per year on ''koshumcha''; those who earn more than 60 thousand soms (700 USD) per month spend on average 42 thousand soms (490 USD). This means that low-income households allocate to ''koshumcha'' a larger portion of their income than those with higher earnings (Tologonova 2020). Another important finding of the survey was that ''koshumcha'' has a generational dimension: while older generations see participation in every ''toi'' as necessary to maintain social ties expecting future contributions from relatives, younger ones consider ''koshumcha'' wasteful and a source of psychological pressure to meet family and community obligations.

''Koshumcha'', then, is an ambivalent social norm that both enables and constrains by creating a lock-in effect on the basis of kinship, social status, or network interests (see Ledeneva et. al. 2018). Embedded in norms and traditions of reciprocity and solidarity, ''koshumcha'' reinforces social ties but also creates a perpetual circle of economic and social obligations. ''Koshumcha'' is a ‘total service’(Mauss 1950), as it pervades all aspects of society, and its logic is dictated at the same time by self-interest and solidarity. ''Koshumcha'' is characterized by a high degree of ambivalence: it is both a practice of social solidarity and redistribution, while also a financial and moral burden for poorer families. The changing nature of ''koshumcha'' from reciprocity and mutual help to tools used to create influential networks is the result of a new moral economy where neoliberal principles and traditions related to the celebration of life-cycle events meet.

==References==

Abdubaitova, A. 2018. 'Osnovnye traditsii, kotorye dolzhen pomnit’ kazhdyi Kyrgyz', ''Kaktus'', 16 September,https://kaktus.media/doc/379489_osnovnye_tradicii_kotorye_doljen_pomnit_kajdyy_kyrgyz.html

Eidson, J. (eds.) 2017. M''ax Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Report 2014 –2016''. Department ‘Integration and Conflict.’ Halle /Saale: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology

Erkebaeva, A. 2018. 'Potratil million na toi i ostalsiya dolzhen gostyam. Kak ustroena kyrgyzskaya traditsiya koshumcha', ''Kloop'', 16 August, https://kloop.kg/blog/2018/08/16/potratil-million-na-toj-i-ostalsya-dolzhen-gostyam-kak-ustroena-kyrgyzskaya-traditsiya-koshumcha/

Granovetter, M. 1985. 'Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness', ''American Journal of Sociology'', 91: 481–510

Kochkunov, A. 2018. 'Religious Practices in the Modern Ceremonial Lives of the Kyrgyz People', ''Anthropology of the Middle East'', 13: 43–54

Ledeneva, A. (eds.) 2018. ''The Global Encyclopaedia of Informality, Volume 1: Understanding Social and Cultural Complexity''. London: UCL Press

Mauss, M. 2002. ''The Gift. The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies''. Routledge

National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic. n.d. 'Srednemesyachnaya zarabotnaya plata', ''stat.kg'', http://www.stat.kg/ru/opendata/category/112/)

Provis, R. 2015. 'Shifting Social Dynamics and Economic Inequality in the Post-Soviet Space: Networking and Participation in Toi among the Novyi Kyrgyz', ''Economic Anthropology'', 2: 371–84

Reeves, M. 2012. 'Black Work, Green Money : Remittances, Ritual, and Domestic Economies in Southern Kyrgyzstan', ''Slavic Review'' 71: 108–34

Tologonova, S. 2020. 'Toiekonomika. Koshumcha Privodit k Bednosti?', ''Kloop, 1 April'', https://kloop.kg/blog/2020/02/01/tojekonomika-koshumcha-privodit-k-bednosti/

Yudachin, K. 1985. Kirgizsko-Russkii Slovar’, ''Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya''

Koshumcha (Kyrgyzstan) - Revision history

Editor2018 at 18:15, 25 November 2022

Admin at 10:58, 3 November 2022

Admin: Created page with "{{infobox | nameofpractice = Koshumcha | flagemoji = 🇰🇿 | definition = Contribution given on important social celebrations | location = Kyrgyzstan | imagemap = Kyrgyzsta..."