Fresh Perspectives on Armenia-Diaspora Relations
Khachig Tölölyan and Krikor Beledian Speak with Haratch

The 2 and 3 July 1998 editions of the Paris-based Armenian daily Haratch carried a provocative conversation between Khachig Tölölyan and Krikor Beledian, moderated by Haratch correspondent Arpi Totoyan. Tölölyan, a professor of English at Wesleyan University, is the editor of Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies. Beledian is professor of Armenian studies at INALCO (Paris) and the Catholic University of Lyon. In Haratch, they explored the dynamics of the relationship between Armenia and the Armenian diaspora in the context of a changing Armenia, a changing diaspora, and a changing world.¹

The conversation started with an attempt to define the term "diaspora." Tölölyan noted that in academic discussions there is contention between two approaches. According to the classical approach, the prerequisite of being a diaspora is to have been expelled by overwhelming force from a homeland. The Jewish and Armenian cases serve as archetypes for this definition.

In the other approach, a diaspora is considered to be a mass of people who live outside a country of origin without necessarily having been expelled from it. The individual maintains ties with that mass, which engages in collective efforts to maintain an identity. This identity is no longer that of the homeland, nor that of the new country. It is a dually rooted identity.

Going beyond academic definitions, Tölölyan observed that many Armenians consider the diaspora to be a segment of the population of the homeland, a segment that aspires or must aspire to reintegrate with the whole. They further believe that a diaspora that does not aspire to reclaim and return to the homeland, or to share its views, is therefore opposed to it.

From Ghetto to Diaspora?

Beledian made a distinction between the terms spiurk and kaghutahayutiun. Spiurk (the Armenian term for diaspora) has a long pedigree—Saint Nerses Shnorhali spoke in the twelfth century of Armenians "i spiurs ashkharhi" (scattered in the world).² Yet, until quite recently, Armenians preferred to speak of kaghuts (colonies) and kaghutahayutiun (Armenians of the colonies).

The two forms of social organization coexist today, Beledian argued. Communities of recent migrants from Armenia are kaghuts. Diaspora is a different circumstance, one that assumes local integration. The distinction is significant because new colonies and older, established ones do not have many ties. Los Angeles is a case in point. The new kaghuts consist of people who left their homeland for economic reasons. The diaspora, on the other hand, has the Genocide as its point of departure. It clings to the memory of the Catastrophe; the more distant the memory becomes, the more the diaspora seems to write about it.

Tölölyan was opposed to designating 1915 as the origin of the diaspora. He noted that dispersion has been part of the Armenian reality for centuries.

Tölölyan found it significant that "there is an intelligentsia in the diaspora that is aware of the fact that we have a dual nature, dual lives, and are subject to integration locally. On the other hand, in Armenia, people whose vocabulary is one-third Russian are convinced that they are pure or real Armenians and we in the diaspora are not. They are as Russian, as odar [alien], as I am American. The difference is that I am conscious of this fact and they are not."

Beledian took the point further. He argued that Armenians, like many people who have suffered, naturally believe that they must strive to remain homogeneous. "We suffer from a complex. We want all of us to be alike, without differences. Whereas, in fact, over time, localizing processes bring out and intensify differences. Our ideology, however, does not tolerate differences. We must all be alike. But if we are all alike, we’ll have precious little about which to talk to each other."

Tölölyan made distinctions among "diasporics," "ethnics," and people who are assimilated in all but name. He defined diasporics as dedicated and often militant Armenians who maintain ties with their counterparts in other parts of the world and with the homeland. Ethnics nominally acknowledge their Armenian identity, and demonstrate it in small ways: for example, they go to an Armenian church once, twice, three times a year; if you know them personally, you can convince them to write a check to an Armenian organization. Committed diasporics are a small minority, outnumbered by ethnics and the assimilated. As long as they maintain transnationally active institutions and occupy leadership positions, however, things work.

Tölölyan noted that there is an effort underway to bring these Armenians under a single umbrella. This umbrella would be associated not with the church or such organizations as the Armenian Revolutionary Federation or Armenian General Benevolent Union, as in the past, but directly with the Armenian state. This effort to integrate the diaspora into the constituency of the Armenian state cannot, however, eliminate the differences between Armenia and the diaspora. Even repatriation maintained the difference between us and them, diaspora and homeland.

The moderator confirmed the last point by recalling the wide and persistent use of "akhbar" in Armenia to refer to repatriated Armenians. "Akhbar," in use for decades, is a peculiar pronunciation of the Armenian word for brother. It presumably mocks the dialect of Western Armenian repatriates as well as, perhaps, their tendency to see every Armenian in Armenia as a brother or sister. The moderator asked whether there is a way of putting differences to good use.

Armenians should sharpen their differences, Beledian argued, rather than hiding them in the hope of a distant reunion. To sharpen differences means to assert values that one has, that one believes in, and that the person one is talking to does not necessarily hold. An Armenian is a person who constantly asks who he or she is. The question of identity is itself part of Armenian identity. Land, moreover, is no longer one of the basic elements of the definition of identity. It is possible to understand that it is very important to some people. It is possible to understand differences. The Armenia that is indispensable to all Armenians is not a territory but a concept.³

Tölölyan asked what it is about the idea of being Armenian that drives Armenians to talk to each other. Why do you say "I am Armenian?" If you say "That is my identity," I say, "In relation to whom and what?" A person who either nostalgically or out of embarrassment or guilt says, "I am Armenian" is not yet Armenian, because identity is relational. "I am Armenian" means very little unless one is able to say, "We are Armenians." Saying the latter requires a degree of engagement in comradeship or argument or both; at any rate, it requires involvement. There is a significant difference between subjectivity and agency. Some can make the transition from internalized sentiment to externalized participation through a strictly local group—the church board, say. Others can make it through a different kind of group—a group of women talking about the trauma of genocide and shame in the third or fourth generation, say—this is still a diaspora activity, with the homeland’s memory thrown in. Still others can do it playing soccer with Homenetmen, while others need the big A, Armenia. The most important first step is from "I" to "we," feeling identity as personal to feeling identity as communal, and then acting for that community. There is a constant effort to bring people together to convert their feelings into action for the benefit of Armenia and perhaps for the benefit of the Armenian people.

Beledian was more interested in Armenians than in Armenia. Focusing on overtures to the diaspora by the Armenian state, he said that Armenia’s goal, now as in the past, is to make the diaspora an instrument. Any state would do the same. The question was whether the people of the diaspora would want to become mere instruments and whether they could agree to become instruments without endangering their survival as communities. The moderator pointed out that Vardan Oskanian, the (diasporan or formerly diasporan) foreign minister of Armenia, recently complained that the diaspora’s potential has not been exploited enough.

Reacting to moderator Arpi Totoyan’s point, Beledian expressed disappointment that the department of the Armenian government that deals with the diaspora is housed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He found it paradoxical that the Armenian state wants to exploit the potential of Armenians abroad as Armenians while viewing only Armenians in the Republic of Armenia as the genuine article. The Armenian government represents "Hayastantsis" (people from Armenia), but not the "Hai" (Armenian) people. The concept of Hai is broader than that of Hayastantsi. Hayastantsi Hais are one variant of the category Hai; Gharabaghtsi Hais are another; and then there are the diasporan variants. It is difficult to get Hayastantsis to accept that they constitute but one subset of an Armenian universe.

Tölölyan agreed that what has changed is the strategy. The goal is always to organize the diaspora the better to utilize it. The moderator, however, raised the possibility of a more balanced give-and-take relationship between Armenia and the diaspora.

Armenia is not disposed to give the diaspora anything, argued Beledian. And anything it may have to offer is of little use to the diaspora. "Say Armenian textbooks are on offer. Textbooks prepared in Armenia are necessarily obsolete at birth. They cannot correspond to our local values and, besides, the people who would prepare them are fundamentally ignorant." A large segment of the intellectual elite in Armenia is insular. For them nothing exists on the outside. There is no outside culture, no outside world, no need to interact, to change. In ten years, there has been no change. The only way is to open to the outside, which they will have to do one way or the other, in spite of their efforts to the contrary.

Turning the idea around, the moderator wondered whether the situation is all that different in the diaspora, where even people considered to be intellectuals seldom challenge orthodoxies. Beledian conceded the point and leveled criticism at the diaspora, where "Armenian communities are showing signs of senility in recent years." For one thing, he said, the traditional political organizations have no new ideas. Even when they go to Armenia, they neither change their names nor develop a program and bylaws to fit the circumstances. Maintaining tradition is a good thing, but political parties and organizations die when they cannot renew themselves. The existing ones seem unable to accept contestation as a way of renewal.

Tölölyan asked how arenas can be established to facilitate communication between Armenia and the diaspora. Even when there appears to be no mutual understanding, it is important for writers and thinkers to meet frequently.

Beledian thought the outlook was glum. He saw Armenia today as a feudal society that consisted of minor princes. There was no room in that society for dialogue, for differences, for a multiplicity of views. Tölölyan was not so sure. He suspected that there are marginalized people with whom dialogue is possible—people who are out of favor and out of power or just plain never had any. He noted that diaspora leaders love consorting with homeland officials and make very few efforts to go outside official channels. Beledian acknowledged that he and others had lost the desire to go and look.

Hot-Button Issues

The moderator raised the question of orthography—an issue she has addressed many times before in the pages of Haratch. The spelling rules of Armenian were changed by decree of the Soviet Armenian government in the twenties. The decree met with resistance in the diaspora, where the traditional orthography remains in universal use.

Beledian agreed that traditional orthography should be reinstated in Armenia but noted: "We can talk about this until we are blue in the face. I doubt Armenia is interested. For Armenia, the diaspora’s problems with Armenia are the diaspora’s problem."

Tölölyan agreed that the issue of orthography in Armenia exists only in the diaspora. In Armenia itself no more than ten people worry about it. For him the central issue was differences in mentality. Orthography, dual citizenship were the wrong issues on which to focus.

Citizenship was also not an issue for Beledian. He objected to the premise of including the issue of dual citizenship in the Constitution of Armenia.⁴ "I have no particular desire to acquire a third citizenship. But I do not think this matter should have been raised as a matter of principle. That is what is inappropriate. It is an uncontested part of the definition of ‘Armenian’ that it includes Argentinean Armenians, Siberian Armenians."

Feeling Superior

Beledian went back to the matter of intransigence among intellectuals in Armenia: "Let’s face it: for many people in Armenia, their encounters with Armenians from outside are power struggles. They have a strong need to assert what they have and what they know. But what they have and what they know is very limited by international standards. A great intellectual void is expressed in their assertions of self-sufficiency. The biggest danger facing Armenia is that feeling of superiority."

Tölölyan said that in Armenia, they want service and money from diasporans, not thoughts or opinions; from America, they want Coke and music and jeans, no serious ideas, please. They want the products of one system of being—diasporan organization, solidarity, work, sacrifice—and again the material benefits and products of a nondiasporan, let us call it a democratic capitalist, system—but no virtues or ideas of that, either: contracts, free elections, free communication, and the like. Material yes, but why learn something about the systems of thought, organization, and behavior that may have had something to do with producing the prosperity and generosity of Armenians in diaspora and Americans?

Beledian said he was engaged in exploring the impact of new technologies on Armenian identity. These technologies are already in place in Armenia. There is an effort to block out external influences, but the effort is too little too late, since the influences are already inside Armenia.

Tölölyan, however, noted that according to one theory—that exists in Marxian as well as conventional thought—when technology and the economy take a certain direction, culture and civilization necessarily keep up with them. You cannot take one and block out the others. Indeed, Tölölyan suggested that rather than fighting such change, the diaspora might serve as a bridge between Armenia and western culture. Armenians from the homeland must learn from the diaspora to use the new technology to be part of the nation, not just citizens of their state.

The moderator questioned whether the diaspora is organized enough to serve in the capacity of a bridge of cultures. Tölölyan suggested that the diaspora is too fractured to develop its own true coordinating organization, but that both it and Armenia could gain if the united Armenian leadership there—say the president, the catholicos, maybe some well-liked figures, maybe flanked by the billionaire philanthropist Kirk Kerkorian—issued a call to a conference in Yerevan with the explicit goal of fashioning a Diasporan Council that would not seek to eliminate diasporan differences but to coordinate all major organizations at the top.

The moderator was skeptical about whether such a move would in fact bring about a decent leadership. Tölölyan agreed that such centralization would not necessarily be a silver bullet. Many people want it, however. And many people lack self-confidence. So if the call comes from Armenia, perhaps various elements will come together. It will be a learning experience if nothing else. In any case, creating a new source of legitimacy is not a bad thing. The old ones are stagnant. Meanwhile, "independent people like us will continue to do what we can on the margins, seeking out elements in Armenia with whom cooperation may be possible."

The moderator wondered where such debate might take place today. Beledian noted that the Argentinean-Armenian scholar Vartan Matiossian has suggested that the Internet can serve in that capacity. Tölölyan added that in the homeland, "Hratch Bayatyan has effectively theorized the use of the Internet more than anyone else; in the diaspora, so has Raffi Ajemian." Beledian predicted that traditional organizations will continue their traditional activities, but new and more vibrant institutions seem more likely to provide ways out of the current intellectual and cultural crisis facing the Armenian people.

Vincent Lima

Notes

¹ The participants were given the opportunity to revise and extend the remarks attributed to them in Haratch. Khachig Tölölyan did so. Thus, the present text does not correspond directly to the original report in Haratch.

² The General Epistle of Saint Nerses Shnorhali was directed "to all the faithful of the Armenian nation, those in the East who inhabit our homeland Armenia, those who have emigrated to the regions of the West, and those in the middle lands who were taken among foreign peoples, and who for our sins are scattered in cities, castles, villages and farms in every corner of the earth." Saint Nerses Shnorhali, General Epistle, trans. and intro. Fr. Arakel Aljanian (New Rochelle, N.Y.: St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, 1996), p. 13.

³ For a discussion of this point, see H. Aram Veeser, "International Nationalism: Living Lack, Muzzled Cohort: A Response to Anahid Kassabian and David Kazanjian," Armenian Forum 1, no. 1 (Spring 1998), pp. 37–59.

⁴ Article 14 of Armenia’s Constitution reads: "The procedure for obtaining and terminating Republic of Armenia citizenship is provided for by law. Armenians by nationality obtain Republic of Armenia citizenship by a simplified procedure. A citizen of the Republic of Armenia cannot be at the same time a citizen of another state."

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.