THE AESTHETIC FUNCTION OF SATIRE IN UZBEK AND ENGLISH LITERATURE

Аннотация

This article presents an in-depth comparative analysis of the aesthetic and social function of satire in both Uzbek and English literature. Despite the universal role of satire as a tool for critique and reform, the historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts of each tradition have shaped distinct stylistic and philosophical approaches to the genre. The study investigates how satire operates in different political and cultural frameworks, how it reflects ethical concerns, and how its artistic expressions evolve across time and media. Through the analysis of prominent figures like Alisher Navoi and Abdulla Qahhor in the Uzbek literary tradition, and Jonathan Swift, George Orwell, and Salman Rushdie in English literature, this article explores satire’s role as a dynamic medium of socio-political reflection and literary innovation. Keywords: satire, Uzbek literature, English literature, irony, allegory, censorship, social criticism, aesthetics, cultural discourse. Satire is one of the most enduring and potent literary forms, characterized by its ability to simultaneously entertain and critique. In both Uzbek and English literary traditions, satire serves as a reflective and corrective force, drawing attention to societal flaws, political injustices, and ethical inconsistencies. Despite its shared foundations, satire in these two contexts has taken divergent paths due to their respective histories, religious influences, linguistic structures, and sociopolitical landscapes. The English satirical tradition is rooted in Enlightenment rationalism and liberalism, where writers and thinkers used humor, irony, and exaggeration to interrogate prevailing dogmas. Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal exemplifies biting irony and the grotesque to expose socio-economic inequalities in 18th-century Ireland. Swift's rhetorical strategy shocks the reader into awareness, using absurd logic to reveal the inhumanity of political neglect. This confrontational method reflects the English literary culture’s tendency to address social issues head-on. George Orwell's satirical dystopias, such as Animal Farm and 1984, demonstrate the genre’s evolution into political allegory. Orwell blends literary realism with symbolic representation to critique totalitarianism, propaganda, and the erosion of truth. His satire does not merely ridicule but constructs an alternate world that compels readers to confront the latent dangers of their political systems. Similarly, Salman Rushdie’s works—particularly The Satanic Verses—use magical realism and postcolonial satire to dismantle religious orthodoxy and cultural essentialism, often at great personal and political cost. In contrast, satire in Uzbek literature often relies on subtler mechanisms. Historically constrained by autocratic rule, censorship, and cultural norms emphasizing harmony and 9 ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI in-academy.uz/index.php/si respect for authority, Uzbek satire tends toward allegory, indirectness, and ethical subtlety. Alisher Navoi, writing in the 15th century, employed didactic narratives and allegorical characters to critique moral and social decay. His satire, embedded in Sufi metaphysics, seeks spiritual refinement rather than political upheaval. The goal is not to scandalize but to awaken the reader to ethical truths. During the Soviet era, Uzbek satire adopted increasingly coded forms. Abdulla Qahhor’s short stories, such as Mehrobdan chayon, illustrate the strategic ambiguity of satire under authoritarian regimes. His narratives, though humorous on the surface, carry underlying critiques of bureaucratic absurdity and ideological hypocrisy. Using irony, hyperbole, and fictional distance, Qahhor exemplified how Uzbek writers deployed satire to communicate dissent while navigating censorship. Bakhtin’s concept of the “carnivalesque” provides a useful framework to understand the satirical mode across cultures. Both English and Uzbek literary traditions utilize the carnivalesque to invert social hierarchies and undermine hegemonic discourse through laughter, irony, and grotesque imagery. In English literature, this inversion is often theatrical and public—Shakespeare’s jesters, Wilde’s dandy characters, or contemporary comedians who mock political figures in open forums. In Uzbekistan, the carnivalesque manifests through maskarabozlik and oral storytelling traditions where humor operates within communal settings like mahallas. Satirical performance, often framed as entertainment, becomes a space for indirect social critique. Here, satire retains its pedagogical function, fostering collective reflection rather than individual rebellion. Language plays a critical role in shaping satirical effect. English satire benefits from the syntactic sharpness and polysemous potential of the English language, allowing authors to create complex layers of meaning with brevity. The pun, paradox, and antithesis are key rhetorical tools. In contrast, Uzbek satire draws