HY RU EN
Asset 3

Loading

End of content No more pages to load

Your search did not match any articles

Sona Avagyan

"You must be able to propose rational symbols to your society"

An interview with ethnographer Mkhitar Gabrielyan What are the primary symbols in today's Armenian society? If we approach this in general terms, the dominant pan-national symbols of significance continue to be Ararat, western Armenia, the national culture, our participation to the global cultural legacy. These are, in the main, the symbols that shape our ethnic character or are at least components of it. More importantly, however, is to what extent these symbols are either rational or irrational. A symbol can exist merely as such, a symbol, but in transitional societies such as ours, that face many problems, in addition to unresolved conflicts, the practical aspect of the symbol takes on a special importance. To what extent is the symbol rational and to what extent is it used by the ruling elites to resolve certain issues? That is the important question From this viewpoint, even those symbols of ours, influenced by different objective and subjective factors, that should have a rational role-playing usage, have, in part, either been transported to an irrational plane or remain on an irrational level. By leaving a symbol in the irrational field, we alienate those responsibilities of our connected to a symbol or idea. For example, an independent state or polity. In this case, have our responsibilities been alienated? Yes, in large part. We love to talk about issues that are pan-national, pan-governmental, that deal with humanity on a global scale. However, when it comes time for us to assume various obligation regarding our rights (here I refer to the average citizen, the intellectual and government official), then we become quite careless and neglectful. We don't discard our trash in the correct place, students feel free to lean against the walls with their feet and soil them, and we sink to the level where we heed the demand of a minivan driver and squeeze in four to a seat designed for just two passengers. There are many other such examples. In this context, the traditional example remains the United States, where there is a specific expressed attitude towards the government; in relation towards the symbol and the institution and its primary attributes. This is the flag, the national anthem, the national emblem, the president, as an institution. The attitude expressed towards these things is quite specific and very rational. Here, personalities are not that essential. Whether or not a person like Obama, Bush, or even one of our three presidents, that like or dislike is never attributed to the office of the president itself. Here in Armenia, however,  we transfer our positive or negative attitudes towards the individual, on the symbol as well. Mr. Gabrielyan, you said that in the case of the office of the president such personalization is not important. But what about whether the individual in office is legitimate or not, whether the elections that put him in office were free and fair? Are these matters important in your estimation? Of course. These issues are of extreme significance. But whether or not we have a legitimate government or not can be both a cause and consequence. I am inclined to view the reality we have today as more of a consequence, and not only in the era of independence, of all those cultural, social economic and political developments that have taken place in Armenia to date. The Soviet union existed for seventy years. There was a society alienated from the government system, a society reduced to the status of an 'object'. This society never engaged in the political decision-making process, except for voting in elections that, as a rule, just had the one candidate. As a result of the 1988-1991 national liberation movement, the political and socio-cultural system became independent and we had a new political elite both in qualitative and quantitative terms. But all this is still not sufficient for the establishment of a government, a state, because here we are dealing with the problem of establishing a system. When we talk about establishing a system, we mean granting freedom in the decision-making process to those holding the power of the ballot; the rank and file citizen. When have we in Armenia had a normal election from 1991 till 2008? In essence, it was in 199, during the first presidential and supreme council elections. The logic of the development of the political system, starting from 1991, has been more of deformation than transformation. From 1998-2008, we experienced the final “monolithisation”, when finance capital entered the political arena and when the oligarchy had pretensions of playing a political role and displayed what we would term "criminal". What is the reason? The processes at work are structural. One can find thousands of reasons. We can point to the 1988 earthquake as a n objective reason, the blockade and the crisis of mere survival from 1991-1994 when many weren’t even interested in what has happening politically or regarding the increasing tensions with our neighbors. As for subjective factors, in essence, the formation of a new elite capable of tackling the primary problems confronting our nation and state, has followed the path of deformation. Our expectations, regarding the establishment of an independent nation state, have not always been rational. We have always assumed that the most important thing in this regard was merely to have a leadership. However, we are dealing with a society, a culture, those symbols that we are discussing. Most importantly, you must be able to propose rational symbols to the society. The 1988 national liberation movement and struggle was unique in that fact that after many centuries we actually were able to liberate certain territories, not lose more. In your estimation, what were the primary symbols of that movement? What you have just stated, in itself, is a formula/symbol. In other words, from 1988 till 1994, we had a situation where for the first time your stated formula or model took hold - for the first time in many centuries we actually liberated historic Armenian lands. But if this remains on the level of mere statement, it's irrational. If you postulate the liberation of land as an end in itself, you have nothing else to do there after liberating a piece of the historic homeland. At least, if you configure the issue as a problem in te process, then you are obligated to create new symbols that must be rational. Maybe I am saying something a bit crude. We liberated the land, then what? In other words, in this case, we should have been dealing with the transition stage of objective to issue. When should that issue have been configured. It should have been formed in 88, 89, 90 and 91, when lands were being liberated during the war. When it remained as a mere objective, it later entered the deformative stage, because when you do not resettle those lands it signifies that it doesn't have the significance for you, in your daily life, for your society and political system as you present it on an irrational level. In order that it becomes rational, resettlement should have become just a means. First off, in order to become rational, it should have been fashioned and constantly executed in the following manner. Each citizen of Armenia, in the main (whether in Yerevan Gyumri or any tucked away village in Armenia, cannot be confident, with their rights defended and ensured, cannot have a comfortable life, since those lands are ye to be resettled, since the symbols of Armenianess aren't restored on those lands, since Armenian settlements and the numbers of young people aren't growing on those lands from year to year, since no graduates of Armenia's colleges and universities are going there to live. That's to say, the irrational symbol must be filled with rational ones. These are social and cultural symbols, the ones used by Israel (even though we don't like to compare ourselves with the Jews) regarding its territories or those seized from the Arabs; when to preserve the idea you place more material symbols under the idea. When you don't have a normal populace on the liberated territories, it is complicated to preserve as a symbol. A child born in 1992, 1993 or 1994 is today around sixteen years-old. When the time comes when that teenagers views those lands as his homeland, her birthplace, then you will be hard-pressed to convince them of the contrary. His or her parents might pack up and leave those lands but not the children, since they have symbols there, a cultural environment. They have grown up there and matured as a member of society. This is what is meant by rationalization. This not only refers to the liberated territories but to the border zones, to any area of Armenia. Have our symbols changes all that much since 1988? Tragically, our society today has very few symbols. When you place an individual in front of a battle for mere survival for twenty years straight, where the most important problem he or she faces is guaranteeing the bare necessities for the family and children, something to eat, shoes on their feet, clothes on their backs, a school bag, heat in the winter, then this person never even thinks about symbols because they are of no use to him. Is an oligarch a symbol for our society today? Yes, for that segment of society approaching the crisis point. But it's not the oligarch, but their money and authority. The oligarch is the medium. Even the bodyguard of an oligarch serves as a symbol for some in society. In any case, man wants to live well and sees who is living well today in Armenia, in Armenian society - those with money. He then sees that even by working hard one cannot make much money in Armenia today. One works just to stay afloat and survive. Naturally, here, these symbols and values and the modes and manners that lead to them must change. How did it happen that the symbols of 1988 have changed to such an extent that we can now talk about the bodyguard of an oligarch as being a symbol for many? We simply did not place much importance to certain processes and we distanced ourselves from many things. That dominant Soviet mentality, when we were objects, was reproduced and added to and enriched and has brought us to the situation we face today. When a person believes that he or she cannot change anything, that nothing is dependent on what ones does, that others will decide for him in any event; all this leads to the reality of today. Who has stated that a symbol itself will create life instead of himself or herself doing so. A symbol also demands investment, just as a good life does. We must give life to symbols with our own conduct, how we lead our lives. In the end, the type of attitude we have today regarding the liberated territories is also a symbol. Many former freedom fighters are facing rough socio-economic conditions today? End of story. It means you have no formed attitude on the subject. Shouldn't the government also have had a role to play here? Of course. But if the symbol of a freedom-fighter has such an important social meaning, then why do we place the burden of responsibility on the government alone? What about us and our basic attitude? It's really a simple and elementary thing. If there is a former freedom fighter in your neighborhood, village or circle of acquaintances, someone, say, who participated in the liberation of Shushi, then how hard is it to call that person up on May 9th and say, "I just wanted to congratulate you on this day of liberation and to thank you for what you did." Do we even do this much? As a rule, few of us do it, make the effort. That freedom-fighter doesn't serve as a symbol for us. Here, there is no need for a government, an opposition, money; in a word, nothing. All that is required is that you cherish that symbol deep inside you; that's all.

Write a comment

If you found a typo you can notify us by selecting the text area and pressing CTRL+Enter