The Next 1.5 Million
A Panel Discussion on Armenian Studies in the United States

A panel convened at Columbia University in New York confronted difficult questions about the state of Armenian studies programs in United States universities. Participants raised significant policy issues that deserve consideration before future investments in Armenian studies are contemplated.

The panelists were Marc Nichanian, Associate Professor of Armenian Language and Civilization at Columbia University; Khachig Tölölyan, Professor of English at Wesleyan University and editor of Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies; and George Bournoutian, Professor of History at Iona College. The author of this report served as moderator. The event, which took place on 23 October 1997, was organized by the New Jersey branch of the Armenian Students Association, Inc., along with the New York branch and the Columbia University Armenian Club.

All three panelists acknowledged that many Armenians felt dissatisfied with the network of endowed chairs in Armenian studies in United States universities. Nichanian argued that the literature chairs were originally conceived in a way that is destructive to the Armenian diaspora, and maintained that at least some of them should become places where the diaspora can study itself. Tölölyan said that dissatisfaction with the chairs stemmed from a consumer mentality among Armenians, coupled with a failure to understand the way universities operate in the United States. He called for more sophistication in dealing with universities. Bournoutian drew attention to the hostile environment in which Armenian studies programs operate, and called for increased vigilance and accountability.

Marc Nichanian’s Presentation

Nichanian’s presentation was organized around the question, "Armenian studies: For whom?" He contended that over the past forty years chairs in Armenian literature in the United States were established with a very precise answer to that question in mind; the answer, however, has remained implicit and has endured because it has remained implicit.

Whereas in Nichanian’s native France anyone can attend university classes without paying, the overwhelming majority of Armenian students in the many colleges in the New York metropolitan area are excluded from his classes at Columbia University. In complaining about this state of affairs, one might suppose that Armenian studies chairs were created for Armenian students or at the very least for the needs of Armenian communities in the United States.

The chairs of Armenian literature were not created, however, for Armenian students but for the purpose of making "a supposed Armenian culture available to the Western world." This purpose, the "will of the initiators," happened to coincide with the desire of universities "for Armenians to decipher and exhibit their past at their own expense." The answer to the question, "Armenian studies: For whom?" then, implicitly, was "For those who are willing to come and watch the exhibition."

Armenians’ complicity in this enterprise emanated from a deep-seated desire to be recognized, Nichanian continued. "To be recognized as what? As what we are supposed to be." Hence the usage "supposed culture." The chairs in Armenian literature can be said to have been created for the Armenian community only if the community is defined by a desire to be recognized as what it is supposed to be.

Until recently scholars of Armenian studies have limited the scope of the field to classical philology; the framework of Armenian studies in Western countries has consisted exclusively of Byzantology, church patristics, and comparative linguistics. The Byzantine context is the received tradition from Saint Petersburg, initiated by Nikolai Marr and continued most significantly by Nikolai Adontz. Nichanian characterized Nina Garsoďan’s translation of Adontz’s 1908 work, Armenia in the Period of Justinian, as the greatest achievement of Armenology in the United States.

Armenian studies until now have identified themselves with philology "because of the will and the wish of the initiators, accepted without any questioning by the scholars themselves. This is a beautiful instance of complicity in the crime," Nichanian continued.

Whether we like it or not, whether we accept it or not, Armenian is a living language in Armenia and in the diaspora; that means it has also a living tradition. During this century this language and this tradition have undergone a terrible test. They maintained and developed themselves in . . . the conditions of totalitarianism on the one hand, and the conditions of diaspora, dispersion on the other. The chairs of Armenian studies in the United States pertain of course to the academic world and are answerable to it; but they pertain also to this living and singular reality that bears the name of diaspora, and they are answerable to it as well.

Can an Armenian chair bring about the institutionalizing of modern thought and modern existence among Armenians? This is the only real and interesting question. Modern thought and modern existence are of course unthinkable if they do not give to themselves the means to become self-aware. . . . It is strange that there is in the Western world no single academic institution where this Armenian tradition—the modern one—
this literary and self-reflexive tradition that constituted itself in the twentieth century, in diasporic conditions, could be studied for itself, and that means could study itself. Where is it likely to do so if not in the framework of a university?

Citing instances where Armenian studies programs and scholars have rejected the legitimacy of modern Western Armenian, Nichanian asserted that Armenian studies actually denies the existence of the diaspora; it engages in "a systematic, criminal denial of the diaspora," and is thus "a lethal weapon turned against ourselves by ourselves."

Nichanian’s own emphatic answer to his question, "Armenian studies: For whom?" was "For ourselves, of course; for the sake of a self-respecting, self-reflexive diaspora." Ultimately, rather than the question "For whom?" Nichanian preferred the question "From where?" to which he answered, "From the diaspora." University programs in Armenian studies should be places "where the modern tradition is studied for itself, i.e., studies itself."

This is not a purely academic exercise. It emanates from the diaspora’s need to prepare new generations of intellectuals and teachers for the Armenian community, Nichanian concluded.

Khachig Tölölyan’s Remarks

Khachig Tölölyan likened Armenian studies chairs to traffic cops directing three-way traffic and themselves contributing to the traffic they direct. Ideally, these chairs should introduce Armenian experience, Armenian thought, and Armenian discourse to the non-Armenian world; second, they should introduce non-Armenian styles of thinking, approaches, analyses, and experiences to the Armenian world; third, and above all, their job is to introduce Armenian to Armenians. And while they are at it, they should themselves create new objects of study.

Tölölyan recalled an instance when he was asked by an Armenian millionaire whether the chairs are necessary at all. He conceded that many specialists in Armenian studies, including the first round of chair holders, were not trained by specialists in Armenian studies. The chairs may have the potential, however, to draw a larger number of students than would enter the field in the absence of the chairs. This fact is only one of the arguments in favor of the chairs, he emphasized.

Many Armenians, Tölölyan contended, have a vague sense that they have the right to expect something from the Armenian studies chairs. Their implicit expectations are not being met by most of the chairs, with the exception of the chair occupied by Richard Hovannisian at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the program at the California State University, Fresno. Some Armenians—primarily recent immigrants from the Middle East—expect university Armenian studies programs to operate in the mold of the Jemaran—the renowned Armenian gymnasium in Beirut—producing graduates who speak, read, and write Armenian and are committed to a certain brand of political-cultural Armenianism. This is the wrong expectation.

Tölölyan asserted that Armenians have a consumer mentality regarding the chairs: members of the community paid for the chairs, and so members of the community have a right to expect something from the chairs. This mentality betrays a profound confusion about the United States university system.

The situation is like someone offering Rolls Royce two million dollars for an all-terrain luxury van. Rolls Royce would refuse. There is huge difference between an established major institution and an artisan in an atelier.

Not too long ago Yale turned down a twenty-million dollar gift from the Bass family of Texas because it came with strings attached. "You do not go to the elite universities of the United States and tell them what to do for a million dollars," Tölölyan stated. That is not to say, he added, that universities do not respond to money and power. "If Foucault has taught us anything, it is that power and knowledge go together." However, a million dollar endowment is not enough to do the job.

Moreover, once a program is established, the outcomes are not necessarily going to be what the initiators wanted. Universities function through departments, each with their own practices. The scholars chosen by the departments have intellectual interactions with their colleagues and develop approaches that may or may not correspond with the desires or the priorities of the people who endowed their chairs.

Tölölyan concluded that supporters of Armenian studies must choose their vehicles according to their agenda. In many cases it may be more appropriate to underwrite undergraduate scholarships, fund political organizations, or support independent scholarly institutes. If university chairs are chosen, then donors must recognize the fact that they cannot control the outcome.

George Bournoutian’s Talk

George Bournoutian presented a history of the chairs, focusing on the chairs of history. He noted that prior to the 1960s, Armenian scholars in the United States preferred not to open the can of worms that is modern Armenian history. This preference had to do with the unavailability of archival sources, language limitations, a lack of encouragement from government and local leaders, as well as the controversial nature of many of the questions modern Armenian history entails. Moreover, ethnic studies were viewed unfavorably; it was contended that they would preach nationalist agendas and bring their grudges to the pristine halls of the United States academe. Armenian studies stuck therefore to the politically safe domain of ancient and medieval history, patristics, religious studies, linguistics, and the like.

The first chair was established forty years ago at Harvard University. It was occupied until recently by Robert Thomson, a great patristics scholar who is now at Oxford University. In more than thirty years in the chair, he produced outstanding translations; the program, however, has yet to produce a single Ph.D.

The second chair, established thirty years ago at UCLA, was held by the late Avedis Sanjian; it has produced two Ph.D.s, neither of whom is employed in academia. One of the advanced students teaches at CSU Fresno.

Nina Garsoďan, battling great institutional odds, established a program at Columbia University thirty years ago. It has produced a number of distinguished Ph.D.s, including among others Dickran Kouymjian, now holder of the chair at CSU Fresno; Rev. Krikor Maksoudian, now director of the Zohrab Information Center; and Levon Avdoyan of the Library of Congress, along with a number of people who are not employed in academia. The only student who specialized in modern history, Hagop Barsoumian, was murdered in Lebanon during the country’s civil war.

University-level instruction in modern Armenian history began with a single course at UCLA in the late 1960s; it was taught by Richard Hovannisian, a visiting scholar who wrote a dissertation on the emergence in 1918 of the Armenian republic. Hovannisian was subsequently hired by the UCLA Department of History. For many years, all his Ph.D. students were Armenian men, and the program became identified with Armenian nationalism.

In an effort to establish modern Armenian history as a field of study and integrate it into broader contexts of scholarship, Hovannisian was instrumental in establishing the Society for Armenian Studies and in affiliating it with the Middle East Studies Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies. Panels on modern Armenian history gradually became commonplace at the annual meetings of these professional societies.

Hovannisian directed a number of Ph.D.s, some of whom—including Bournoutian himself—are currently employed in academia.

After the united outcry of Armenians worldwide on the fiftieth anniversary of the Genocide, the Turkish government started to distribute large research grants to selected academics who would falsify history, Bournoutian noted. Alarmed by this development, Armenians mobilized to establish programs to preserve the memory of their recent past. There were appeals to the community for funds. The perception of the donors, very clearly, was that the chairs in Armenian studies would counter the efforts of the Turkish state. If the fund-raisers had said they do not guarantee that commitment on the part of the chairs, they would have raised perhaps 10 percent of what they did raise.

Two chairs were established at the University of Michigan, decidedly dedicated to modern history and modern literature. The history chair, occupied until recently by Ronald Grigor Suny, has produced two scholars, Ara Sarafian and Vincent Lima. A very active program was established at CSU Fresno; it prepares undergraduates. It was recently expanded with the establishment of a second chair. A second chair was also endowed at UCLA to ensure that Hovannisian’s work is continued after he retires.

An important part of the teaching of modern Armenian history takes place through adjunct visiting professorships at institutions like the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Connecticut, New York University, Rutgers, Tufts, and Ramopo College. In the meantime, there are a number of scholars not associated with the chairs—such as Vahakn N. Dadrian—who are active in the field.

In this atmosphere, and given the ability of other ethnic groups to establish departments and programs dealing with modern history, Armenian students, parents, and communities sought to fill the vacancies at Harvard, Columbia, and UCLA with specialists in modern history and literature. They argued that modernists would attract more students. The response of universities was extreme annoyance at the Armenians’ presumption to interfere. Highly qualified specialists in modern Armenian history did not even make the short list in some instances. The universities were afraid, perhaps, that the chairs would become vehicles of Armenian nationalist agitation.

Columbia University has appointed a modernist for a three-year term; to its credit, it has not bowed to pressure—including a petition signed by a number of Armenian scholars of the premodern era—to do otherwise. Harvard and UCLA refused to interview ethnic Armenians, preferring non-Armenians studying safe subjects.

People expected that at least the chairs reserved expressly for modern history would be filled by specialists who deal with modern history, including the Armenian Genocide. When Suny left the University of Michigan for the University of Chicago, all scholars of modern Armenian history applied for the chair. None made the short list. Instead, an anthropologist was appointed to the Alex Manoogian chair in Modern Armenian History.

It remains to be seen who will be appointed to the new history chair at Tufts University and who will be appointed to the history chair at UCLA when Hovannisian retires: "Will they be filled by legitimate, qualified modern Armenian historians? Or will they be filled by emerging anthropologists, sociologists, economists, and political scientists with a rudimentary knowledge of Armenian language and history?"

Bournoutian contended that the fall of the Soviet Union has produced so-called specialists with little expertise in the area, working for government agencies, banks, and foundations. "Their main virtue seems to be the absence of the ‘ethnic’ label." Meanwhile, committed, bright students continue to spend years mastering the languages and sources and writing some of the best dissertations written in any discipline, only to remain unemployed.

Bournoutian concluded by saying "numerous young scholars, instead of choosing lucrative careers which would have earned them medals and testimonials from the Armenian church and patriotic organizations, decided to follow their intellectual callings for low pay and low status." Meanwhile, the chair holders in Turkish studies—mostly modernists—continue publishing shoddy and dishonest work without being labeled biased or nationalist. "It is not surprising then that the Armenian Genocide has gone from being an undisputed fact to the ‘evacuation of a suspect population.’ Some academic institutions are aiding and abetting Turkish nationalism and denial; meanwhile Armenians are standing idly by, witnessing the burial of two hundred years of their modern history."

Moderator’s Remarks

"Given all this, where should the next $1.5 million be invested?" the moderator asked.

He observed that the study of Armenians entails more than ancient and modern history and literature. Anthropologists, economists, epidemiologists, students of cinema and popular culture, law scholars, and musicologists who focus on Armenia or Armenians must be considered part of Armenian studies.

The community has much to gain from the work of the best of these scholars. But there is no way that chairs can be established in each of these and similar fields. Moreover, as Khachig Tölölyan pointed out, there is no reason to believe that chair holders would focus their work on the questions that the donors would consider most pressing. Also, as George Bournoutian indicated, it is very possible that people with a commitment to the community would be excluded from consideration as potential chair holders. Finally, the donors would have no recourse in cases like that of Kevork Bardakjian, who has occupied the chair in modern Armenian literature, with its one-million dollar endowment, at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, for ten years and has produced neither a single graduate student nor a single publication. What then is the alternative?

One important alternative, as Tölölyan noted, is the independent atelier. The artisan in her workshop is in fact likely to do a better job than Rolls Royce would if it agreed to build the all-terrain luxury van: Free of the restrictions a Rolls Royce designer would face, she might buy an engine from Rolls Royce, pick up a chassis from Range Rover, and build the body herself. By the same token, a well-endowed independent institute of Armenian studies (such as, in practice, the Publications Program of the Dolores Zohrab Liebmann Fund) can seek out the best, most promising scholars in and out of universities throughout the world and support their work. It can do so without surrendering all power to an unaccountable university.

Marc Nichanian asks, Where is the Armenian community likely to study itself if not in the framework of a university? He also observes that students are spread out among numerous universities and colleges. Independent institutes of Armenian studies have the potential to facilitate engagé scholarship within a variety of academic institutions and also in settings that transcend institutional boundaries, the moderator concluded.

Vincent Lima

Armenian Forum 1, no. 1 (Spring 1998), pp. 95–101 © 1998 The Gomidas Institute

Home  |   News  |  Contents   |  Subscribe  |  About   |  Authors  |  Advertise   |  Links

© 1999 The Gomidas Institute. All rights reserved. Last modified on 06 January 2008.

The link below helps us count the number of visitors to our Web site.