HY RU EN
Asset 3

Loading

End of content No more pages to load

Your search did not match any articles

Hrach Bayadyan

Where Do Europe's Borders End?

Begining

The study shows, using the example of Taiwan, that the effects of globalization on a non-Western society can lead to a few different types or directions of transformation.  These seem to be typical for societies which are forced to rebuild themselves to adapt to the new conditions and to make a place for themselves in the new global situation.  But it is difficult to notice any of those signs or the possibility of any transformation in Armenia. 

 It is meaningless, for example, to expect the return of anyone educated in the West (there are no such people especially in the social sciences), the development of any social movements or formation of other forces which would spread new knowledge or a fresh way of thinking, leading to social transformation.

Thus, Europeanization in this sense is much more typical of Taiwan than Armenia, despite the latter's historical, cultural, geographical - and in recent years political - proximity to Europe.  It is also obvious that there are Europeanized classes in Turkey, including in University circles, which one cannot claim for Armenia.  Armenia is currently distant from the West, culturally if not geographically.

Armenia on the Margin of Europe

The term "margin(s) of Europe" has been in use for a number of years already, which has geographical, economic, political and cultural connotations.  This is a heterogeneous and changing region, which also includes a group of former Soviet republics.  Some of them managed, in this period of time, to become new members in the European family, others transformed into "new neighbors".  It is worth noting that this movement towards Europe, as a rule, includes an explicit tendency to escape from Russian influence.  One should also mention that within an enlarging Europe there seem to be areas of inequality - one might call them "internal margins".  As cultural critic Sean Cubitt noted, “In the new Europe 'we' are all Europeans, but the old Europeans continue to occupy the center stage exclusively”.

Over the past years, the terms "Russophile" and "Europhile" are increasingly being used not just to describe politicians or political parties.  A need to demarcate Russia from Europe seems understandable and historically justified for a former Russian colony and Soviet republic, which, as a member of the Council of Europe, must at least appear to seek better relations with the European Union.

Therefore, this fact can be viewed from the standpoint of a more likely effect of globalization - would globalization for Armenia mean Russification or Europeanization?  One should keep in mind also that colonization by Russia has not been the same for Eastern Armenians as Soviet rule, and it remains unclear what post-Soviet Russification would mean for Armenia.

But why should those two choices be mentioned as mutually exclusive options?  Does a decision have to be made between them or can one combine Russification and Europeanization?  If, as the researchers assure, it is possible to combine Islam and Western values (Islam and democracy, Islam and a market economy) in Turkey, if the processes of Japanization, Europeanization and Americanization can run parallel in Taiwan, then why can the same not occur in this case - why are Russification and Europeanization perceived as mutually exclusive in Armenia?  The obvious answer is that in Armenia's case, this choice is mostly a question of political influence, and the "complementariness" of Russia and Europe seems less and less likely with each day.

This is not as much a result of current geopolitical developments as the Russian inclination of Eastern Armenians dating back two centuries, which has grown into a nearly indestructible cultural and attitudinal mold, becoming an indispensable component in their self-perception.    Therefore, a closer look reveals that this choice is not a real one, but rather imagined.  It is an unfortunate fact that the current Armenian authorities have returned the country to an area of marked Russian influence.  However, as it was pointed out earlier, the manifestation of this Russification is not yet completely clear.  The relations that existed both before and during the Soviet Union were not between two states.  The "centuries-old friendship between the Armenian and Russian peoples" is one thing, while Russian-Armenian state relations are quite another.  On the other hand, while that Russian-Armenian friendship has not been properly studied and reclassified as a colony-colonized relationship, it will be very difficult for us to adequately recognize Russia's current colonial intentions and find ways to resist.

As for the socially significant perceptions of Europe, and more broadly of the West, in Armenia, they are still very vague and fragmented.  Modern Europe (or the West), besides a few stereotypes, remains largely unknown to Armenian society.  For example, Western countries can be classified in the Armenian consciousness according to whether or not they have recognized the Armenian Genocide…

Moreover, it would not be an exaggeration to claim that the West in the modern age has reached the Armenian consciousness mainly through Soviet and Russian moderation.  Even today, the picture of the West which is familiar to us bears a stamp saying "Made in Russia" and it is difficult to imagine Armenia rapidly ridding itself of this crooked Russian mirror, which has been charming it for the past two centuries.  At one time, looking towards Russia was the only Western option away from Iranian influence for the Eastern Armenians and their only chance to interact with a Western culture of any kind.  Thus, Russification and Sovietization were a way of modernizing and Westernizing pre-Soviet Armenians and Soviet Armenia.

This means that the question "Russia or Europe?" is a very complicated and delicate one for Armenians.  In these conditions, when there is very little to support a Western inclination or Westernization, Russification might seem the only acceptable option, which is reinforced by historical experience and tradition, but even more so by a desire to avoid free thinking and stick with cultural stereotypes, with supposedly unwavering values and preferences.  Additionally, in the years following independence much of the evidence of Soviet modernization vanished, which should have led to some reflection on traditional values and self-criticism, finally leading to a path of Westernization for Armenia.

Whether it is "an open-air museum" (one of the 'distinguishing' titles from Soviet years), "an outpost of Russia", "the people subjected to the first Genocide of the 20th century" or some other such thing, it is all about a passive mass of people expecting titles and descriptions from the outside world, while trying to export their local exoticism to the global market (a process shamefully called "presenting oneself to the world").  The alternative is to reach out to globalization, expressed in a word and without any detail as "Westernization", which is based on a vision for the future within the context of globalization, while preserving one's own culture and rebuilding society accordingly.

Write a comment

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