The Memory of the Armenian Genocide as the Main Factor of Armenian Nationalism


There are a number of scientific approaches of understanding the concept of Genocide. Some of them may spread a light on understanding the impact of Genocide on the identity of both the victim and the murderer. For instance among such approaches are AleidaAssmann’s discussions of collective memory, Gregory H. Stanton’s suggestions of the genocidal process, the concept of cultural trauma of Jeffrey Alexander, etc. The Armenian Genocide is not an exception. Nevertheless the Armenian Genocide has its own features and characteristics. Moreover it is distinguished from other cases by its results and effects on the society. To be precise we come across to a complicated phenomenon which is typical for the Armenian case. On the one hand it has created dual Armenian identity via Diaspora[1]. On the other hand within the memory of the Genocide it has constructed the images of victim and the image of enemy. Both of these factors are highly connected to nationalism and nationalistic behavior.

Thus, the issue of effects of the Armenian Genocide on the Armenian society and Armenian identity is the one which needs to be looked at carefully.

In this article the main factors of the Armenian Genocide and its connection with nationalism are going to be discussed. Firstly in this article we are going to answer the following questions: which are the main features of the Armenian Genocide, how it is reflected in Armenian identity, how it can affect national behavior. Secondly several questions connected to nationalism and nationalistic behaviors are going to be examined. For instance, what is nationalism, which are the main factors that describe this phenomenon, which are the main scientific approaches of nationalistic studies. And finally, the third part will describe how the Armenian Genocide is connected with Armenian nationalism.

There are divided several steps or periods of organization and realization of the Armenian Genocide. The duration of this period is rather long. “During World War I, the authorities of Turkish Ottoman Empire carried out one of the largest Genocides in world history, destroying huge portions of its minority Armenian population. That Genocide followed decades of persecution, punctuated by two similar but smaller rounds of massacres in the 1894-96and 1909[2] periods that claimed two hundred thousand Armenian deaths. In all, over one million Armenians were put to death during World War I. Adding to this figure are the several hundred thousand Armenians who perished in the course of Turkish attempt to extend the Genocide to Russian Armenia in the Transcaucasia in the Spring and Summer of 1918 and then again in the Fall of 1920 when Ankara’s fledgling government ordered General Karabekir’s army to “physically annihilate Armenia”.”[3]

Although about a century has passed from that times, but the fact of the Genocide still remains both in history and in Armenians’ minds. Armenians still remember those years as the worst in the Armenian history, although today’s Armenians are not the direct victims or witnesses. This is what scientists call collective memory. The stories told by those who survived after the Genocide, the letters and narratives of witnesses from other countries, the activity of intellectuals of the time (many Armenian and foreign authors, politicians refer to the issue of the Armenian Genocide), etc., constructed a part of Armenian collective memory. Thus the fact of the Genocide cannot be discussed separated from the identity. Beside the issue of effects of Genocide and remembrance on identity construction in general reflects not only on the victims but also on the ones who realized the Genocide. German professor of Englsih, Egyptology, Literary and Cultural Studies AleidaAssmann suggests four models of trauma which are typical for the case of Genocide. According to her approach the models are:

1. Dialogic forgetting,

2. Remembering in order to prevent forgetting

3. Remembering in order to forget

4. Dialogic remembering[4].

Further Assmann suggests that all the four models “are all also attempts at overcoming the pernicious basic law that persists after a traumatic outbreak of violence: victors impose their version of history on the defeated victims whose experience is silenced. Such a memory conquest of the stronger over the weaker perpetuates and stabilizes oppressive power relations and hence cannot be conceived as a “model” for dealing with a traumatic past. The same is true for an imposed silence which exonerates the perpetrators and harms the victims”.[5]

It is obvious that the Armenian case is an example of the second model. Internal and external policy, social intentions, etc. are directed to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Unless the fact of the Genocide is not recognized by Turkey, the Armenian society will not be able to move to the next step of these models.

Nevertheless being a basis of the structure of the Armenian collective memory the fact of Genocide has other important roles in Armenian society. It is important to mention the existence of Armenian Diaspora which, in general, is a result of Genocide[6]. The fact of the Genocide is a kind of a factor, which connects Armenians all over the world. In the point of view of the Genocide, Armenian identity is not separated between the identity of the Armenians living in The Republic of Armenia and the Armenians living abroad, i.e. the identity of Diaspora. While talking about Armenian identity (constructed on the fact of the Genocide) we understand it as general, as they all share same historical past including memories of ancestors, victories (Sassoun resistance in 1984, Zeitun rebellion in 1895, etc.) and defeats, same national goals (in this case it is mainly recognition of the Armenian Genocide), same images of “We” and “Other” etc.

Thus, having examined the role and functions of the Armenian Genocide on Armenian identity it is obvious, that Genocide is the one of the main elements of the structure of the Armenian identity as it creates common memory of traumatic past, common goals (recognition of the Genocide) and common images of “We” and the “Other”. All these and some other factors are the basis of identity.

National identity is very close to the phenomenon of nationalism, as they both have almost the same basic elements[7]. However it is common to say that these two categories are connected and supplement each other. Thus, it is important to understand the phenomenon of nationalism, to find out its connections with identity in general and especially with the case of the Armenian Genocide.

Nationalism is one of the basic means of self-existence and unification of each nation[8].  However, there are several approaches[9] which argue that nationalism is a threat of solidarity and cooperation between nations, thus it is a barrier for tolerance and the process of globalization.

In order to avoid such controversial interpretations we must distinguish nationalism from its extreme forms such as chauvinism, ethnocentrism, fascism, xenophobia, separatism, etc.

What is nationalism? Which are the special characteristics and features of the nationalism?  In general, nationalism can be discussed in a variety of basis:

  • An ideology,
  • A feeling,
  • As a basis of formation of nation and state,
  • A complex of national symbols, culture, traditions and customs,
  • As a tool for contributing national mobilization.

“Besides the above mentioned classification nationalism can be discussed due to the functions that it can have in the society.

  • Nationalism is the primary factor that contributes the creation and maintenance of existence of nation and state.
  • Based on nationalistic feelings nationalism tends to unite different layers of society, regardless of their class interests.
  • Nationalism contributes the mobilization the nation and its potential for the common political goals.
  • The basis of nationalism is the unification of people belonging to the same nation and same culture around the common ideology. Thus solidarity and liaison become essential”[10].

These categories are the main points that distinguish nationalistic theories from each other. In scientific literature there are known several major paradigms of nationalism: modernism, constructivism, instrumentalism, ethnosymbolism, perennialism and primordialism. These paradigms can be divided into two groups, taking into consideration the differences between the approaches of construction, basis and goals of nationalism.  In the first group which includes modernism, constructivism, and instrumentalism, can be categorized according to which nationalism is an ideology typical for the modern postindustrial societies.  The supporters of modernism believe that the nation is not an integral part of human nature, but it is a social structure, a product of modernization (industrialization, capitalism, urbanization, democracy, etc.). “In general terms modernization theories maintain that nationalism emerges as a result of the process of transition from traditional to modern society; some of these theories focus more specifically on the spread of industrialization, and on the socio-economic, political and cultural conditions functionally associated with it, as the main cause for the development of nationalism”[11]. Focusing especially on industrialization the supporters of modernism argue that just industrialization of societies led to the formation of nationalism as a political ideology and an important element of national identity. The most outstanding representatives of the modernism are E. Gellner (“Nations and Nationalism” Second Edition, 1983, Oxford), E. Hobsbawm (“The Invention of Tradition” 1983, Cambridge University Press, “Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: programme, myth, reality” 1991, Cambridge University Press), B. Anderson( “Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism” 1991, London) and others.

Another approach of understanding nationalism is given by constructivism, which is connected to modernism. According to constructivism nationalism is a construct or, as B. Anderson describes, an imagined community, which is formed by the elite or the intellectuals of the society[12]. This approach suggests that the members of imagined communities or, in other words, members of nation are united not directly, but are in certain social and territorial distance from each other. Moreover they realize that they belong to the same community. However in any case it is necessary to emphasize or “invent” the similarities which will allow creating that imagined community.  It is also important to make the members of the nation get sense of identity and belonging, differentiate “We” from “Other”.

Supporters of constructivism suggest that very often traditions are an effective way of invention of such similarities. The author of the term and the book “Invention of traditions” E. Hobsbawm distinguishes 3 types of traditions that are the basis of national identity and nationalism:

  • Those establishing or symbolizing social cohesion or the membership of groups,
  • Those establishing or legitimizing institutions, status or relations of authority,
  • Those whose main purpose is socialization into a given system of beliefs, values, and conventions of behavior[13].

Another theory that is very close to constructivism is instrumentalism. The main difference is that in this case nationalistic ideology is discussed according to interests. To be precise the above mentioned interests are related to the elite, for whom nationalism is a tool of satisfying its own interests. As a tool nationalism can serve for the nation, for mobilization nation’s potential, for promoting solidarity and mutual support in the society and for other purposes.

Although perennialism,  primordialism and ethno-symbolism suggest that nationalism as an ideology is a result of postindustrial society, they insist on the idea that nationalism is typical for preindustrial traditional societies. “Primordialism, as the belief that nations have usuallyexisted from time immemorial, has generally been discarded by scholars. However, perennialism, the belief that a few nations existed in antiquity or the Middle Ages…”[14].According to these paradigms nationalism is a social-national feeling which has formed by ethnic, linguistic, religious, and other common factors. Primordialism puts the idea of collective identity in the basis of nationalism where cultural component and kinship play the most important role. According to C. Geertz, whose studies of nations and nationalism are clearly described in his famous work “Interpretation of cultures”[15] there are several sources of primordial statements.

Race. Clearly, race is similar to assumed kinship, in that it involves an ethnobiological theory. But it is here the reference is to phenotypical physical features especially, of course, skin color, but also facial form, stature, hire type, and so on, rather than any very definite sense of common descent as such…”[16]

Assumed blood ties or ‘quasi-kinship’; and he explains this: “‘Quasi’ because kin units formed around known biological relationship (extended families, lineages and so on) are too small for even the most tradition bound to regard them as having more than limited significance, and the referent is, consequently, to a notion of untraceable but yet sociologically real kinship, as in a tribe.

Language, though not necessarily divisive, can give rise to linguism as the basis of primordial conflicts;

Region, which can be especially troublesome in geographically heterogenous areas;

Religion, a force which can undermine the comprehensive civil sense;

Custom, which with life-style often opposes sophisticated groups to what they see as more barbarian populations.”[17]

Coming to the next paradigm of perennialism, one can see that it is very close to primordial approach of nationalism. Perennialism puts several verbal expressions under creation and development of collective identity. Such expressions are songs, customs, traditions, prayers, and so on.

“…it [perennialism] refers to the historical antiquity of the type of social and political organisation known as the “nation”, its immemorial or perennial character. In this view, there is little difference between ethnicity and nationality: nations and ethnic communities are cognate, even identical, phenomena. The perennialist readily accepts the modernity of nationalism as a political movement and ideology, but regards nations either as updated versions of immemorial ethnic communities, or as collective cultural identities that have existed, alongside ethnic communities, in all epochs of human history. On the other hand, the perennialist refuses to see either nations or ethnic groups as “givens” in nature; they are strictly historical and social, rather than natural, phenomena.”[18]

Another point of view to the issue of nationalism is given by ethnosymbolic paradigm. The supporters of this theory believe that nationalism depends on ethnic factor. “”Historical ethno-symbolism” is the name given to an approach to the study of ethnicity and nationalism that emphasize the role of myths, symbols, memories, values and traditions in their formation, persistence and change. It differs from others in understanding the importance of subjective elements and of the longue duree in our understanding of ethnic groups and nations.”[19]

The supporters[20]of this theory do not accept the fact that nations are typical for postindustrial societies. Theyargue that even in preindustrial period there were a lot of ethnic units which had their own cultural elements, historical memory, myths of ancestors and certain solidarity. During the development of such ethnic units adherence to a certain historical territory occurs. Moreover these ethnic units create their own differentiating rules (norms, mores, values, etc.) and customs.  As a result ethnic groups develop and become nations. Besides A. Smith points out that as long as there is no cohesion of the nation, a sense sharing cultural and historical identification, the nation cannot be fully formed. Thus he believes that nationalism is the result of identification and consciousness of belonging to certain.

Currently, there are a lot of possibilities of modifying nationalism into extremism. The latter may lead to escalation of conflict and contradiction between nations and states. In these terms besides all the above mentioned paradigms of understanding nationalism, one also needs to pay special attention to theoretical interpretations of “We” and “Other” categories. ElieKedourie in his work “Nationalism” (4th edition, 1992, Oxford) offers a complicated approach of nationalism and the category of “Other”. He suggests that each culture is unique and should not be mixed or combined with others. However “The application if this idea to politics, he argues, has transformed the conception of the nation into a “natural division of the human race”, which should maintain its purity and further cultivate its own character separately from other nations. Kedourie’s inquiry into the foundations of nationalism, thus shows that the doctrine not only defines the “we”, the nation, to which individual owes his/her locality, but also asserts that there is a “They”, an out group, namely other nation from which the in-group must remain separate.”[21]

Nevertheless in the theoretical issue of nationalism there are almost no polarizations, separations between “We” and “They”, and which is of no less importance, the features and descriptions of the image of the enemy. This is a result of the fact that nationalism is usually observed as a phenomenon or ideology which has positive functions in the society.

In general, we can define several main points that are typical for nationalism according to different paradigms.  Such typical characteristics and features of nationalism are the myths of common ancestors[22], common history including victories and defeats, common historical memory, shared culture and language and, even, beliefs, common images of “we” and “other” (in some cases even “enemy”), etc.

All the above mentioned paradigms of nationalism are typical and applied for understanding of each nation.

But for the Armenian nationalism there can be different approaches according to the period of its formation. It may include different historical periods such as invention of Armenian letters[23], or, to be precise, MovsesKhorenatsi’s “History of Armenia”[24] which was written in Armenian due to that invention. Besides no less importance had played national liberation battles against Persia (especially the battle of Avarayr or Vardanants Battle on May 26, 451 AD), later against the Ottoman Empire[25], or  enlightenment (many politicians, authors etc. were trying to awaken national identity) and political activities (the first Armenian political parties were organized during this time period) in the19th century, or the formation of the First Republic of Armenia (May 28, 1918), as well as the events of the last two decades (collapse of the Soviet Union, Nagorno-Karabakh war, formation of the independent Republic of Armenia).

However, based on the fact that nationalism implies collective understanding and perceiving of national identification and cohesion, the 19-20th centuries can be considered as the period of formation of the Armenian nationalism.  Hobsbawm notes, that even though in the 1870-1918 period nationalistic movements began where they were not even expected, but it is still not clear whether those anti-imperial movements can be considered as nationalistic or not[26]. However, according to the author, the influence of Western nationalistic ideologies on the leaders and activists of such nationalist movements is undoubted. He also emphasizes that many movements outside Europe, which had not previously existed or were implicit, were becoming active at the end of 19th century. Such movements attracted Armenians too[27].   19th-20th centuries in Armenian history are strongly connected with the Genocide. The Genocide played a significant role in further developments of Armenian history and, of course, of Armenian identity in general. Thus, it is one of the main factors of construction of Armenian nationalism. In this point of view it is much more interesting and important to understand Armenian nationalism and its impact on the society discussing especially the fact of the Armenian Genocide. So we are going to discuss the Armenian case using the factors and features of nationalism.

Describing Armenian nationalism under the point of view of ethno symbolism it can be said that the Genocide is the most important factor, which creates the myth of nationalism. The reason is that the myth introduces the memory of national loss.  In this case nationalistic myth which is based on historical past is defined not by victories but lost and beating. The mentioned logically implies to the point that the nation will have negative and even antagonistic behavior toward the ones who are considered to be “guilty” for the loss. In Armenian case this negative attitude goes to Turks.

Collective national memory needs a reproduction as long as nationalism needs to be spread and developed in the society. In the case of Armenian nationalism this problem and this need was very actual during a long period of time. Firstly, in 1918 formation of the nation-state demanded creation of national idea, political ideology. Moreover this ideas and ideology must include common national characteristics and features, historical past, and, in some cases, national loss. In the Armenian case this loss is expressed in the Genocide.

Secondly during Soviet period the issue of protecting and developing national was considered to have utmost importance as in that period the dominant ideology of communism was antinational and international. This problem was partly solved by the Armenian intellectuals who were trying to present this issue for both government and society. The Genocide was presented in art[28], literature, etc. by different intellectuals and sometimes even by politicians. In Soviet period the myth of Armenian nationalism by creating collective memory of the Genocide was especially promoted by the Armenian writers. It is important to mention, that their works were reachable for the significant part of the society thus were able to have a great effect. Such enlighteners were Hovhannes Shiraz (especially his famous work about the Armenian Genocide “The Armenian Dante-esque” written in 1941), ParuyrSevak (his poem “The Unsilenceable Belfry” (1959)  was dedicated to the remembrance of the Armenian Genocide and a famous Armenian composer Komitas (he was one of the witnesses of Genocide) and others.

The third important period during which the primary goal was to establish and strengthen nationalism was the formation of The Third Republic of Armenia in 1991. Again, the collective memory was a good source for the creation of the new national political ideology. In this period due to the activity of the intellectuals and elite the factor of the Genocide was already rooted in the mind of the Armenians. Besides, the problem of promoting nationalism was still urgent and remained relevant, due to the Turkish denial of the Genocide. Thus, it became a part of policy in national and even governmental level. In this case, we can say that as a part of the national historical past, the Armenian Genocide still remains one of the most important factors of creation of Armenian nationalism.

The Genocide can also be interpreted by Hobsbawm’s concept of invention of traditions.  In this point of view Genocide as a means of creation of Armenian nationalism, has symbolizing social cohesion (for example Mount Ararat is a symbol of loss, Genocide, homeland (mainly for Diaspora) and hope), legitimizing institutions (both internal and external policy of The Republic of Armenia  refers to the issue of the Genocide), and socialization into a given system of beliefs, values (For example each year on 24th of April Armenians from all over the world come to Yerevan, to the monument Tsitsernakaberd which is dedicated to the remembrance of the victims of Genocide). In his book “The role of memory in the structure of national identity: theoretical issues” H. Marutyan points out that the category of collective memory contents a past, that is not only shared but also is commemorated. Annual marches to the memorial of the victims of Genocide are a good feature of the above mentioned point[29].

Taking all the abovementioned arguments on the Armenian Genocide, its role in the structure of Armenian national identity and connection with Armenian nationalism it is possible to have some conclusions.

  • The Armenian Genocide is a part of national history, a dark side of it. It is one of the best illustrations of loss and defeat, lost territories and national trauma. Thus, it becomes a link of a chain due to its historical aspect.
  • The Armenian Genocide is deeply rooted in the memory of Armenians thus, it is what we call collective memory. The later has a significant role in the process of formation and protection of national identity, national ideology and nationalism.
  • The Armenian Genocide creates a common goal for the whole nation. The recognition of the Armenian Genocide is one of the most significant interests that each of the Armenian will mention among all the national goals. This creates a static basis for national interests and goals, thus formatting stabile nationalistic ideology.
  • Although there are significant differences (linguistic specification, citizenship, and sometimes religion, etc.) between the Armenians living in the Republic of Armenia, and ones, living in Diaspora, the Armenian Genocide unifies both of these identities in one.
  • The Armenian Genocide includes the best illustration of “other”, as there is a certain object with opposed goals and interests. The “other” is a certain nation who is “guilty” for our loss and trauma. According to this certain “other” “we” nation can determine and define itself as a nation with several features.
  • The Armenian Genocide, as an important factor of Armenian identity, has its symbolic illustration (for instance Mount Ararat), reproductions in literature (poems, novels, etc.) and art (paintings, monuments, statues, etc.), and, also, a fixed remembrance day (April 24th).

All these abovementioned points come to prove that the Armenian Genocide plays the role of a connector and mobilizes Armenians all over the world regardless of their status, layer, education, etc. thus being a part of a structure of the Armenian nationalism. We can say that even though the Armenian Genocide was realized about a century ago, it still remains the main factor of the Armenian nationalism as it is a part of Armenian history, collective memory, and Armenians themselves.

[1]“There are more than ten million Armenians living in Armenia, Artsakh and the Armenian communities across the globe, that is, the Armenian Diaspora. The Armenian Diaspora was formed throughout the centuries as a result of the loss of Armenian statehood and the establishment of foreign powers, the massacres of Armenians and the Genocide of 1915. Today, there are Armenian communities in more than 100 countries all over the world and the majority of them are in the Russian Federation, the U.S.A., France, Georgia, Syria, Lebanon, Argentina, Canada, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as other countries. Armenians of the Diaspora are mainly involved with issues concerning preservation of the national identity; they establish schools, churches, cultural homes and pan-Armenian organizations. After the independence of Armenia, relations between Armenia and the Diaspora intensified and reached a new level of cooperation” accessed by  02.11.13

[2] “The Armenian Massacres in 1894-1896 were the first near-genocidal series of atrocities committed against the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. They were carried out during the reign of Abdul Hamid (Abdulhamit) II (1876-1909), the last sultan effectively to rule over the Turkish state. The massacres broke out in the summer of 1894 in the remote region of Sasun in southern Armenia, where the government relied on the excuse of Armenian resistance to Kurdish encroachment into the last recesses of the mountains to order the sacking of the alpine hamlets” accessed by  02.11.13

[3]The history of the Armenian Genocide: ethnic conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus. Vahakn N. Dadrian.   Library of Congress accessed by 04.09.13

[4]AleidaAssmann From collective violence to a common future: four models for dealing with traumatic past// Conflict, Memory Transfers and the Reshaping of Europe. Edited by Helena Gonçalves da Silva, AdrianaAlves de PaulaMartins, FilomenaVianaGuarda and José Miguel Sardica.Cambridge Scholars publishing. 2010, pg. 9  accessed by  05.09.13


[6]The history of Armenian Diaspora has deep roots, dated from 4th century, although during that time it was called gaghut, which refers to the Armenian communities outside the homeland (Encyclopedia of Diaspora: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World , pg. 36-48 accessed by  02.11.13)

[7] Such elements are common history, culture,  memory, etc.

[8] Աստղիկ Օսյան, Հայկ Սահակյան “Ազգայնականության ուսումնասիրության մեթոդաբանական հիմքերը և հիմնախնդիրները հայ հասարակության պայմաններում” //Սոցիոլոգիայի ֆակուլտետի տարեգիրք 2009. ԵՊՀ հրատ., Երևան 2009, էջ 228 /in Armenian/

[9] Concept of nationalism is criticized mainly by Marxist theory. Besides Hans Kohn also mentions some dysfunctions of nationalism in his book “Nationalism: its meaning and history”

[10]Աստղիկ Օսյան, Հայկ Սահակյան. “Ազգայնականության ուսումնասիրության մեթոդաբանական հիմքերը և հիմնախնդիրները հայ հասարակության պայմաններում” //Սոցիոլոգիայի ֆակուլտետի տարեգիրք 2009. ԵՊՀ հրատ., Երևան 2009, էջ 225-235 / in Armenian/

[11]Josep R. Llobera, Recent theories of nationalism. University College London, Barcelona 1999  02.10.13

[13]“Encyclopaedia of Nationalism” Athena S. Leoussi editor, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 2001, pg 161

[14] Daniele Conversi” Mapping the field: Theories of Nationalism and The Ethnosymbolic approach”, accessed by  02.10.13

[15] Clifford Geertz “The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays” 1973, New York

[17]Nationalism and Modernism.A critical survey of recent theories of nations and nationalism. Anthony D. Smith. London and New York, 2003,pg. 153

[18]ibid pg. 159

[19] “Encyclopaedia of Nationalism” Athena S. Leoussi editor, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 200, pg. 84

[20] The followers of ethno symbolism are John A. Armstrong (“Nations before Nationalism”, 1982), Anthony D. Smith, etc.

[21]“Encyclopaedia of Nationalism” Athena S. Leoussi editor, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 200, pg. 228

[22] Armenians have a legend of HaykNahapet (Hayk the Tribal Chief) according to which Hayk is the ancestor of all Armenians.

[23]Armenian Alphabet was introduced by Saint MesropMashtots in 405 AD and containes 36 letters

[24] This book is an early account of Armenia, covering the mythological origins of the Armenian people as well as Armenia’s interaction with SassanidByzantine and Arsacid empires down to the 5th century. It was translated into French, Italian, English, etc.

[25] In this period there are known Sassoun Rebellion, Zeitun Rebellion, etc.

[26] Աստղիկ Օսյան, Հայկ Սահակյան “Ազգայնականության ուսումնասիրության մեթոդաբանական հիմքերը և հիմնախնդիրները հայ հասարակության պայմաններում”//Սոցիոլոգիայի ֆակուլտետի տարեգիրք 2009. ԵՊՀ հրատ., Երևան 2009, էջ 225-235  /in Armenian/

[27] Ibid.

[28] One of the best illustrations of loss is Arshile Gorky’s painting called “The Artist and His Mother” (1926–36)

[29]Հարություն Մարության “Կոլեկտիվ հիշողության դերն ազգային ինքնության կառուցվածքում. տեսական հարցադրումներ” «Նորավանք» գիտակրթական հիմնադրամ, Երևան 2006, էջ 47 /in Armenian/

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *