Let us once again review the complicated cartographical issue of the area surrounding the Opera.

Firstly, this is not the kind of area which loses its significance because it has been neglected or forgotten. The square and adjacent territory have been subjected to active work, due to which the area continues to remain attractive, playing a central role as always, but in a new social and cultural situation. Thus, the way the old values were forgotten and anachronized was done not just through a complete change of context, but through the invasion and reinforcement of new values.

The statues have not been removed (newer ones have been added – Aram Khachatryan, Arno Babajanyan), but the atmosphere is not one of entertainment – the symphonic and opera concert halls are sonorous as always, but the music is rabiz and pop.

The collapse of theSoviet Unionand the global situation changed the current scene and the outlook dramatically – the message of public awareness, cultural development and modernization was deprived of its source, and the square lost it utopian horizon. The atmosphere has been studded with vast entertainment sites, setting up the national and political dimensions of the square in a clash with the new divisions in society, with the multi-layered relationship between the government and opposition…

But, as already mentioned, the area still has a very strong magnetism. Back in the Soviet years, the fences around the Opera distinguished themselves from the rest of the political atmosphere (where slogans of “Glory to the Soviet Union and the Communist Party” and the like were commonplace) by being the main source of cultural information, full of posters for plays, concerts and other such events. Now, this flow of cultural information has become even more diverse and bold, presenting new entertainment journals and the latest stars as well as advertising theatrical and musical events (from rabiz all the way to famous musicians here on tour). This area remains the richest point of informational convergence and it attracts people who want to be part of the show and who wish to enter the world of consumerism. As is usually the case, affordability and control once again work simultaneously here – different types of entertainment are on offer, but the norms and values of consumerism are encouraged and certain tastes and values are reinforced. Let us not forget that all this is not just done with local resources, but also through the active participation of the mass media, such that it is now impossible to pictureFreedom Square as an entity separate from the media, especially television.

Thus, the significance allotted to public spaces is not unchanging and immortal, but rather can be disputed and critiqued. They are constructed and reinforced not just through material carriers (buildings and statues) but through a variety of practices. This significance and these values are not due to coercion by some force, but often rather result from mutual agreement, negotiations and concessions. The media also participate in the formation of this meaning and its dissolution through the scenes they present, along with descriptions and analysis.

Cultural Revolution?

In the issues presented so far, one notices the presence of two different cultural strata – the first is the legacy from Soviet times while the second is the result of the waves reachingArmeniafrom global culture. Both may have undesirable consequences. This time, let us cover the first and see how we can free our national culture from Russo-Soviet rule or from its continuing influence and undesirable traces. Edward Said, a renowned theorist and cultural critic in the second half of the 20 th century, distinguishes two stages in the process of decolonization – he named the first stage geographical relocation, while the second was called “cultural modification”.

After rule by the Russians and Soviets that lasted nearly two centuries, decolonization might first of all mean the ability to once again look around. After all, for all that time, the view of all Eastern Armenians was magnetized like a compass into looking only towards the North. Now, after breaking away from the Soviet Empire, it is our job to rename and reassess the corners of the world – North, South, East and West.

With independence,Armenia's borders were separated both from the vast and endless territory of the Soviet Union as well as from the many historic boundaries thatArmeniahas had in the past. Due to the war and the blockade, these new borders became painfully tangible. But they were, at the same time, permeable – as shown by the large and irregular flow of emigrants and repatriates. Membership in different international organizations and communities (CIS, Council of Europe) and the unresolved Karabakh conflict could never favor self-rule, the confirmation of borders or the geographic establishment of national identity. In addition,Armenia's borders today are still being protected by Russian troops.

Cultural modification is perhaps an even more complicated issue. It may be understood as the process of cleansing national traditions, culture and cultural consciousness from Soviet influence and of reestablishing what is purely ours. This is the definition, more or less, given by the author of the article Armenia's Second Desovietization in the February 3, 2007 issue of Haykakan Jamanak . Here are a few key phrases – “second desovietization, a rediscovery of what is Armenian”, “a new rebellion against the Soviets, new liberty from the Soviets”, “Armenia is pregnant with revolution” the realization of which “is a matter of will, technique and circumstance only”. The author is convinced that after all that, the “Armenian flight” will occur – political and cultural revolutions are inexorably linked to each other in this context.

The Soviet period was one of modernization for Eastern Armenians. During different stages of this Soviet project for modernization, ideas and attributes characteristic of a new-age nation were absorbed. Concepts of culture, nation and national identity were considered, thoughts dominated of creating a rich “Soviet Armenian culture” in different spheres of activity. This gave weight to the idea that the Soviet Armenian was a hybrid entity (as the name itself suggests), where the original Armenian is inseparable and inaccessible in its pure form.

In my opinion, the agenda of “desovietization” mentioned above has neglected this important nuance, thus turning national culture into a mythical and legendary entity, while at the same time ignoring anti-Sovietization (if we use this term in a different way from “de-Sovietization”) and the difficulties associated with cultural decolonization. I would like to remind the reader of an idea presented by Arjun Appadurai – “Decolonization for a former colony means dialogue with its colonial past, not the simple destruction of colonial traditions and lifestyles”. Therefore, the search for “authentic tradition” as well as a pure and untainted national identity should be left to nationalist alchemists, while we wait for hard work over a long period of time, with results appearing slowly. A critical review, dissolution and (re)construction of cultural tradition demand contemporary knowledge (theories and methods), attitudes and mental abilities, which the “Armenian intellectual” does not have and which, naturally, are not taught inArmenia's countless universities. Unfortunately, in these conditions, lacking adequate scientific capabilities and activities, podiums at protest demonstrations and editorial columns in journals are the main place to consult and find solutions to the numerous serious and urgent issues.

In a situation of this sort, a cultural revolution is simply impossible, although the revolutionary gesture (through “one blow”) of wiping out everything undesirable at once is understandable. But the gesture itself means the plain politicization of the issue. Culture is political in itself, and its banal politicization completely wipes out the meaning of the issue.

Moreover, it seems that talk about a cultural revolution is of Soviet origin in itself. The authors of the cultural revolution most familiar to us were the Bolsheviks themselves. If this were true, then anti-Sovietization would also mean treading carefully when it comes to speaking of cultural revolutions of any kind.