Critics’ Forum
Literature
Disregarding the Diaspora’s Cultural Production? The Diaspora
Ministry’s Essentialist View of Armenian Identity
By Myrna Douzjian
In 2008, the Republic of Armenia announced the establishment of the
Diaspora Ministry. Since then, this newly established governmental
department has been implementing its primary mission, furthering the
development of economic, social, and cultural ties between Armenia and
the diaspora.
Considering the Diaspora Ministry’s mission, it is perhaps surprising
that the diaspora news media (with the notable exception of the
consistent critique offered by Nor Harach) has by and large reported
on its efforts in a tone ranging from neutral to positive: the
ministry’s activities have yet to generate broad-ranging critical
inquiry from the diaspora. Perhaps diaspora institutions and
individuals simply consider themselves unaffected by the ministry’s
activities. After all, the diaspora has more pressing issues to
address. The Diaspora Ministry does its thing, and we do ours. Or,
perhaps the diaspora even welcomes the ministry’s efforts.
A few weeks ago, I received an announcement that the ministry had
forwarded to the Society of Armenian Studies (or, SAS, a US-based
organization that represents the community of Armenian Studies
scholars around the world): "The Ministry of the Diaspora of the
Republic of Armenia will be holding a scientific workshop on `The
Problems of Preservation of the Features of Armenian Identity in Mixed
Marriages’ (April 25-26, 2010)." The announcement presents the
opportunity of offering a cultural critique of the ministry’s position
vis-à-vis the diaspora, one that is long overdue. And the area that
deserves serious attention is precisely the one suggested by the
announcement: the rhetoric regarding Armenian cultural identity.
Let’s begin with the aims of the workshop, as described in the call
for abstracts: "To discuss and reveal the difficulties and problems
(such as language, traditions, religion, children’s upbringing, family
relations, participation in Armenian community life, being accepted by
the Armenian community) typical of the Armenian families of mixed
marriages, to find ways and means for solving those issues through
constructive discussions and analyses, to work out programs meant at
preservation of (sic.) national identity in such families."
The description, while problematic from the perspective of race
relations, also assumes that Armenian communities ostracize couples in
interethnic marriages, an observation that may have been valid decades
ago but ignores the current cultural and social realities of life in
the diaspora. Armenian communities worldwide have changed and evolved,
especially over the last few decades, and they have come to embrace
what might be more accurately described as a "hybrid" identity – in
interethnic marriages as well as in monoethnic ones. As Khachig
Tölölyan has convincingly shown, the elites and institutions of
the Armenian diaspora advocate competing visions of diasporic
identity. The acceptance of a gamut of options for identity
construction attests to the diaspora’s transition "from exilic
nationalism to diasporic transnationalism" (Khachig
Tölölyan. "Elites and Institutions in the Armenian Transnation."
Diaspora 9:1. 2000). In other words, the various articulations of
"Armenianness" throughout the diaspora interact differently with their
historical and social contexts – they include, exclude, and
manipulate, to varying degrees, the cultural intricacies of the locale
in which they exist.
The workshop seems instead to be moving in the opposite direction –
towards an essentialist view of the Armenian identity. It proposes to
find a prescription for "preserving" a singular, national(-ist)
identity in the diaspora. The announcement’s list of recommended
topics for discussion, for instance, refers repeatedly to "national
identity" and "preservation." In effect, it parades the "problems" of
the diaspora, while ignoring the diaspora’s potential to contribute
its own rich, hybrid cultural complexities to the national cultural
discourse. Countless examples from socio-political and cultural life
demonstrate that the understanding of being "Armenian" (except as a
language) cannot be compartmentalized and isolated. These realities
include not only the basic fact of a rise in interethnic marriage, but
the establishment of organizations like the Armenian American
Democratic Leadership Council, the production of a tri-lingual film
like Egoyan’s Ararat, and the formation of culturally hybrid bands
like System of a Down, Visa, and Element, to name just a few. The
phrases "national identity" and "preservation" imply instead that the
authentic source of culture is the nation-state, ignoring in the
process the historically "mixed" sources of Armenian culture, even and
perhaps especially in the Republic of Armenia.
According to its official line, the Diaspora Ministry embraces the
Armenian diaspora indiscriminately and in its entirety. However, the
announcement’s release suggests a different and disturbing pattern of
alienating just that constituency. The members of the SAS, for
instance, received the call for abstracts only a month in advance. The
seemingly inclusive announcement welcomed papers based on academic
research and/or personal experience. However, by failing to provide
ample notice, it also helped ensure the exclusion of diasporic
communities, most of which are geographically considerably far from
Armenia, where the conference would be held.
While the points I’m making may seem to ascribe a purpose to the
workshop where none exists, its announcement echoes the ministry’s
larger, exclusionary ideological agenda, suggested on other
occasions. For instance, the minister, Hranush Hakobyan, explains one
of the principle reasons for the Diaspora Ministry’s creation this
way: "Preservation of Armenian identity (hayabahbanum) in all its
forms. By preservation of Armenian identity we mean the Armenian
family, Armenian culture, faith, and our mother tongue. If these four
great pillars remain steadfast and strong, then we will be able to
resolve the many issues of our preservation" (Qtd. in Vincent
Lima. "Hranush Hakobyan: `The Diaspora Ministry Is the Home of Every
Armenian.’" The Armenian Reporter. 21 November 2008).
Among the aforementioned "four great pillars" of Armenian identity,
language is the only concrete concern that can actually benefit from
state-sponsored intervention. The references to the Armenian family
and faith hint at an undeniable intolerance for homosexuality,
agnosticism, atheism, and, more tacitly, other religions. On the
whole, Hakobyan’s explanation entails a belief in the rigidity of
Armenian identity. The. imposition of such a specific framework and a
mold that diasporics must fit ignores the social circumstances and
historical realities of diasporic life. It also severely diminishes
the creative independence and agency of the diaspora. A belief in the
freedom to construct identities challenges such an approach and is
amply demonstrated by the literature of various diasporic centers.
A vast body of Armenian literature produced by various diasporas
problematizes the notions of ethnic authenticity and homogeneous
cultural identities – from Shahan Shahnour, Hagop Karapents, and Vahe
Oshagan to Krikor Beledian, Khoren Aramouni, and Vahe Berberian. The
works of these authors, however distinct, demonstrate that cultural
identity is not preserved anywhere, let alone in the diaspora. Rather,
it continually evolves, along with the social and political
circumstances of its context and interactions. In other words,
Armenian diaspora literature is a testament to Arjun Appadurai’s
assertion: "The imagination is now central to all forms of agency, is
itself a social fact, and is the key component of the new global
order" (Arjun Appadurai. "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global
Cultural Economy." Theorizing Diaspora. Eds. Jana Evans Braziel and
Anita Mannur. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003).
One hopes that the Diaspora Ministry, despite its function within an
ideological state apparatus, will develop a more sensitive approach
that embraces the Armenian diaspora’s complexities and the
heterogeneity of diasporic identities. As Gayatri Spivak aptly puts
it, "Armenia [has been] pluralized in diasporas for many centuries"
(Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Other Asias. Blackwell Publishing:
Malden, 2008). Reconsidering its state-centered outlook would allow
the Diaspora Ministry and similar institutions to recognize the
diaspora’s plural and fluid reality – one that contributes variously
to a multiplicity of imagined Armenias. Such a recognition would also
facilitate the cultural growth and diversity that helps enrich the web
connecting the diasporic communities with the Republic of Armenia.
All Rights Reserved: Critics’ Forum, 2010.
Myrna Douzjian is a doctoral candidate in the Department of
Comparative Literature at UCLA, where she teaches literature and
composition courses.
You can reach her or any of the other contributors to Critics’ Forum
at [email protected]. This and all other articles published
in this series are available online at To sign
up for a weekly electronic version of new articles, go to
Critics’ Forum is a group created to
discuss issues relating to Armenian art and culture in the Diaspora.