Author Archives: SimonVratsian


(In Hovh. Tumanyan’s publicity)


Sergey A. Aghajanyan
The article presents an analysis of the observations on the Armenian identity in one of the most important parts of Hovh. Tumanyan’s literary heritage – in publicity.

The study consists of three main parts and summarizing conclusions.
The first part briefly reviews the main content and stylistic features of Hovh. Tumanyan’s publicity. It is pointed out that the key issue of that publicity is the revelation of the defects characteristic of the Armenian identity and their causes, the mentioning of the means of overcoming them. It is also shown that the sociological professionalism, honest and sincere patriotism of the author is evident in them, even in line with present-day standards, which his contemporaries did not always correctly understand and appreciate.

The second part of the study illustrates and explains the socio-political circumstances by which acknowledgement Hovh. Tumanyan became an active figure of literary and public life, serving it also with his unique identity of a writer. His active civic behavior also manifested itself in publicity not only as a formed worldview, a complex set of raised issues, but also a publicistic style and vocabulary. In this sense the objectivity and debatableness, being brief but at the same time subtstantive, often also imagery is inherent to his articles, etc.

The most extensive part of the article is the third one (“The Defects of the Armenian Identity and Their Causes”), in which the Tumanyan observations of the national identity are presented in three groups: the collective identity of the Armenian, the identity of the Armenian people, the identity of the Armenian intellectual. In all three cases, they are shown by Hovh. Tumanyan with differentiated assessments and qualifications, persuasive reasoning of the defects, the proposed solutions being conditioned with the author’s worldview. The historical and anthropological observations of the great intellectual are emphasized in the study, especially because they show the sociological depth of his mind and the generalizing power of the formed truths.

In the Tumanyan observations of the Armenian identity there are many characteristics and definitions worth of wise mind that are the result of both historical experience, and the wonderful knowledge of the vital realities and human descriptions of his time. Particularly with the latter circumstance is conditioned my reflection on the theoretical problems of retrospective evaluation of the national identity and historical experience, since they have not been ignored as well in Hovh. Tumanyan’s observations. The optimism about the future of the Armenian people expressed in the author’s publicity and its utopian manifestation are not neglected in the article, too.

The study concludes with resumptive conclusions that emphasize the relevance of Hovh. Tumanyan’s observations on national identity in our day as well, which should give rise to serious reflections for the people on the road to independence, especially for intellectuals.


The criticism of Marxist theory of socioeconomic formation


Hovsep I. Aghajanyan
In their theory of socioeconomic formation K. Marx and F. Engels tried to present the patterns of human history. Marxism considered the basis for the change in these formations to be the operation of the law of the interaction of productive forces and production relations. According to this logic, Marx and Engels presented the history of social development as a sequence of the so-called primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and future communist social system. According to Marxism, socio-economic formations are determined by the relationship between the base and the superstructure. A basis is an economic system conditioned by proprietary relations. According to the nature of the basis, a superstructure is formed, i.e. set of political, legal and ideological relations. For this reason, Marxism considers the sphere of spirituality to be derivative with respect to the basis.

In the article it is shown that the Marxist theory of the emergence and transformation of private property and socio-economic formations does not correspond to reality. As a result of the analysis of the socio-economic, political, legal systems of Ancient Rome and Greece, it is substantiated that they were not classical slave-owning states. Marx and Engels explained the socio-economic, spiritual, cultural, state-political, i.e. contradictory and complex civilization processes from the point of view of class antagonism, the basis of which is the relationship of private property. The thousand-year history of mankind shows that such confrontations are just external manifestations of the underlying processes taking place within society. Moreover, on the basis of private property, internal incentives for human life are built, which, first of all, have spiritual and psychological motives, are manifested in the sphere of material production.

The main events of the history of mankind cannot be separated from the general process of civilization and presented as a controversial theory. Marxism, ignoring the processes of civilization, on the basis of possessive relations built the logic of transformation of the social system, which is conditioned with complex and contradictory institutional relationships. The key to revealing the essence of the transformation of society is the knowledge of the internal logic of civilization processes. Marxist criteria for assessing the nature of the social system do not work, because they are built on false and divorced from reality schemes. For this reason, Marxism did not pass the historical test, as it presented the internal motives of complex social events from the point of view of their external manifestations.


Albert A. Stepanyan
Antique and Early Medieval (Christian) social theory is considered to be based on the concept of the isomorphism of the two principal components of social life – individual and social bodies. This approach reached back to the Sophists, Socrates, and Plato. In his treatise, Politics, Aristotle brought the concept of focusing attention on the household/family (oivjkoς) to fruition and finding in it the first (and the basic) form of social partnership (koinoniva) [Aristot., Polit., II, 1259a, 3 – 7]. He believed that the socialization of two opposite individuals – men and women – was only effectively formed within a family.



David V. Gyulzatyan (Vanadzor)
The language sign is signaled and the language is re-awakened in us at the moment of signification, which is still identifiable by inner speech. Signification is a signal, a signal about the existence of the sign, of a total signedness, of the borderlines of the sign-sphere.

The signification (sign-attribution) is the reference of a sign, by the possibility of unit selection, i.e. the freedom allowed by the inner form of the language and its encoding, to an external object. The whole sign-related activity is sign-generation, which is a simultaneous process of language generation and speech generation. Only an unfinished beginning is characteristic of language generation and that beginning is always repeated at the signaling of each speech initiation. A signal is activated immediately before beginning a speech, at least in inner speech, and by the end of the speech, it outlines a domain of signs, called sphere of signals, borrowed from the language system and reflected on itself.

The sphere of signals is susceptible by the language system, by the conceptual field, which is largely situated in, but not limited to it and in whose bounds the signal itself lies dormant as a permanent possibility. The sphere of that which is signified comprises the poles of meaning and significance: without the latter (i.e. significance), there is no existence for the former (i.e. meaning), that which forms meaning is secondary. This function of formation allows significance autonomy, meaningless significance, while “significance-free meaning” is impossible. There is no unsignified meaning because meaning is a constituent part of the sign and there is no sign deprived of significance. The verb “to have” is the common knot of the concepts of “significance” and “meaning”, that is the common attribute of these concepts is their state of activity together with the “I have” signal. Their differentiating attribute is, from the perspective of meaning, passivity, with an additional signal of expressedness, while from the perspective of significance, it is activity, with an additional signal of formedness. The sign characteristic of significance is the doubled state of activity with the same class of possession (I have) and formedness, while the sign characteristic of meaning is the states of activity and passivity with the different classes of possession (I have) and expressedness. Meaning is expressed, significance is not expressed. Meaning has significance, significance can have a meaning. Meaning is expressed: significance can form meaning.

Sign-generation is dependent upon the co-guidance of internal form and encoding. Internal form is the channel through which the river of speech flows forward. The regulator that ensures consistency to this progression of speech flow is the encoding stemming from the language source that initiates a new beginning by pumping “the river” to opening new riverbeds, i.e. to changing the content of the inner form.

Judgment is a reunited concept of subject-predicate that had emerged by the disintegration of a uniform sign, while concept is a judgment subject to disintegration and reunification of a sign. Judgment is a breath-filled concept, a concept is a judgment that is breathless, but still apt to be breathed in.

The immobile proto-mover is in the language system, and only in its hyper-sphere, from which emerges the sign-generation of the language matter. The whole process of sign-generation is the harmonious linkings of consecutively actualizing sign elements in the intertwined domains of conceptual field and the signal sphere. The predicative beginning is in the hyper-sphere of the system, and its descent to speech expanse is the signaling of signification as a linkage of the worlds of language and extra-language.

The dense predicative composition of the hyper-sphere is the predicative linkage of the worlds of language and extra-language. The immobile proto-mover is in the hypersphere of the language system, in the once-unified Է/Est, which is the reflection of the Most High Է/Est upon the language, his existence in the language of which the entire activity of language signification springs forth and reaches its purpose by means of speech.

The Է/Est is the breath of the Most High, His trace, or rather, His protective righthand upon our language…


A comparative analysis of the situation in 1918-1925

Gurgen V. Vardanyan
At the end of May 1918 the Declaration of the Republic of Armenia (RA) opened a new page in the history of the Armenian school. During two years of existence of RA the democratic changes in the sphere of education were aimed at the creation of the new national-state educational system. After the establishment of the Soviet power in Armenia C(B)PA did not continue educational reforms. Moreover, it followed a new policy of consistent adoption and realization of the legal acts and resolutions. Mostly they were directed towards the denationalized school system’s creation which would correspond to the new regime. In the 1920s the Soviet administrative system exerted efforts to impart the Communist ideology to Armenian pedagogy in order to turn it into a humble instrument. But the most part of Armenian teachers continued to educate pupils in the national spirit.


History of origin and development


Suren A.Manukyan
Today, thirty years after the origin of the genocide studies we can assess the exceptional role it has performed in transforming from a small group of individuals into a field that involves hundreds of scholars and thousands of students, and also is one of the most dynamic and actively growing areas of social sciences.

After the creation of the term “Genocide” by Polish lawyer Rafael Lemkin, this definition was neglected by the scholars, and only a handful of experts continued to use the term in their research. For some time the field of genocide studies was shadowed by the study of the Holocaust, which began to flourish since the mid1960s. In the late 1970s, a group of scholars (L. Kuper, H. Fein, I. Charny, I. Horowitz) began actively to promote the study of genocides and the conference of 1982 in Tel Aviv became visible evidence of the emergence of the discipline.

The end of the Cold War and new genocides that took place in Rwanda and the Balkans drove growing interest to the subject and the development of the field. The search for mechanisms to prevent genocides has become one of the main issues of research, and prevention of genocide became a form of action and public pursuit.

Now genocide is endowed with all the basic attributes of a distinct academic field. Books about genocide are published in the best publishing houses, journals, textbooks, encyclopedias, readers, textbooks bibliographies are appearing permanently, seminars, round tables, conferences, web sites, research centers and international organizations embrace the field. Numerous universities offer courses on this topic. Several theoretical problems are considered, and new approaches are adopted.



Taron V. Hakobyan (Stepanakert)
The political situation formed in the USSR after 1985 ensured the opportunity for raising the idea of united and independent Armenia.

Ignoring the right of the Armenians of Artsakh on self-determination, as well as, the legal and political grounding of their demand, Azerbaijan, with the support of Moscow, again preferred uncivilized methods of solving the problem by organizing ethnic cleansings. This situation kept on till 1991 when the perspective of the collapse of the USSR appeared.

The NKR was formed during the collapse of the USSR on the basis of the national and state formation in the structure of the USSR–NKAO and Shahumyan region, inhabited by the Armenians. Taking into consideration the impossibility of satisfying by the USSR and some international organizations the demand of the reunion with Armenia, as well as, the fact that the problem was considered in the context of territorial claim from Armenia to Azerbaijan, the authorities of the NKR chose the only compromise way out by adopting on September 2 the resolution on declaring the NKR. Thus, on the one hand, NK declared itself independent from Azerbaijan, on the other hand, gave up the idea of reunion with Armenia.

Thus, the NKR was declared in the hardest period of time for the Armenians of Artsakh – in complicated military and political conditions. Still, the declaration of the independent statehood became a new stimulus for resisting the aggression of Azerbaijan, ensuring the security of the population and its peaceful life.



Lilit Hr. Hovhannisyan
The documents of the USA State Department are of paramount importance from the point of view of the study of the official discussions in 1917-1920 on the issue of creating united and independent Armenia and also for the essence and content of their American perception. According to these documents in the final stage of World War I the United States began to participate actively in the repartition of the Middle East and Transcaucasia. This aspiration of the US foreign policy corresponded to the geopolitical goals of the Entente countries. It is no accident that the US became soon after an influential geopolitical actor in regional affairs.

The documents of the State Department of 1917-1918, in particular the recommendations on American conditions have to be submitted to the Paris International Peace Conference, the correspondence of the Secretary of State R. Lansing with the Ambassadors of the US to Great Britain and Great Britain to the US and with the representatives of the US Government in Europe and Supreme Military Council of the Allied States, as well as, with the other officials. Then the “14 points” of President W. Wilson presented to the US Congress on January 8, 1918 testify that the United States regarded the Caucuses as a part of the problem concerning Ottoman Empire and was interested in providing the autonomy for Western Armenia under the protection of the great powers as minimum and the independence as maximum, thereby recognizing the right of the Armenian people for free self-determination. However, the US Government was not in a hurry to provide financial, material and military assistance to Eastern Armenians and Eastern Armenia standing on the road to independence or to protect Western Armenia from the inevitable invasion by the Turkish army.

A considerable part of the US State Department’s diplomatic documents refers to the discussions of the question of mandates at the Council of Ten, then at the Council of Four of the Paris Conference in January-March and May, 1919. These documents cast light upon the offers of the Prime Minister of Great Britain D. Lloyd George on recognizing the independence of Western Armenia and endorsing the US mandate not only for Western Armenia but also for Transcaucasia. They represent Wilson’s position on the establishment of a separate American mandate for the western and eastern parts of Armenia and a united American mandate for Constantinople, Anatolia, Armenia and Transcaucasia, as well as, the viewpoints of the Heads of Allied powers, US high-ranking officials. Moreover, the King Craneʼs and J. Harbordʼs state missions explored the region in June-August, 1919, on the justifications for the idea of a united American mandate and the prospects of its implementation. Due to some of the documents referring to the reasons and conditions for the de facto recognition of the Republic of Armenia by the Allied powers on January 19, 1920, and by the United States on April 23, 1920, the essence of decisions on establishment of United and independent Armenia made by the great powers at the Conferences of London in February-March, 1920 and San Remo in April, 1920, as well as, the reasons for the US Senate rejection of Armenia’s mandate on June 1, 1920 and also the essence and legal-political importance of the undertaking of arbitral mission by W. Wilson for determination of the Armenian-Turkish border can be explained.

The State Department documents on listed problems are preserved in the National Archives of Washington and Yerevan. They are also included in the volumes officially published by the US Government in 1931-1947.



Armen Ts. Marukyan
Being guided by provisions of “The Act of Independence of United Armenia” the head of the delegation of the First Republic of Armenia A. Aharonyan together with other winning powers on August 10, 1920 signed the Treaty of Sèvres with the Ottoman Empire that was beaten in World War I. According to the 88th article Turkey alongside with other states that had signed this treaty recognized Armenia as an independent state. By the 89th article of the Treaty, Turkey, Armenia and also other countries that had signed this Treaty agreed to leave the demarcation of the ArmenianTurkish border in the provinces of Erzurum, Trabzon, Van and Bitlis and also the solution of a question of an exit of Armenia to the Black Sea on the decision of the USA. Because of the change of the geopolitical situation and internal political processes in Turkey the Treaty of Sèvres was not ratified and did not come into force.

However, several months before signing the Treaty of Sèvres four conferences in San Remo devoted to the process of specification of border between Armenia and Turkey that ended on November 22, 1920 with adoption of Arbitral Award of the U.S. President Woodrow Wilson on the Armenian-Turkish border began. According to Arbitral Award, the most part of provinces of Western Armenia namely of Van, Bitlis and Erzurum and also one third of the Trabzon province were transferred to Armenia, providing it an exit to the Black Sea. The territory transferred to Armenia composed of 103.599 km², i.e. about 40% of the territory of Western Armenia. Arbitral Award of Wilson was made according to the norms of the international law operating then and was the manifestation of political responsibility concerning the Ottoman Empire that committed genocide of the Armenian population. Deprivation of the Turkish authorities of dominance over the listed former territories of the Ottoman Empire this international legal act registered the fact that only the inclusion of these territories in the structure of the Armenian state can be a sufficient guarantee that the indigenous Armenian people who fell a victim of genocide can return homeland and restore the violated rights.



From Past to Future


Gevorg S. Khoudinyan
Each epoch in Armenian history had, relatively speaking, its own perception of “United” beginning from the nevertheless imperfect wish of uniting Armenia Major and Armenia Minor up to the unification of Eastern and Western Armenia, as well as, today’s political task of enclosing the Republic of Armenia and Artsakh in one state-political vessel. Alongside with this our persistent struggle for “Unity” in the diachronic scope of Armenian history has up to now shown only one result, i.e. the successive fall of Armenian kingdoms, the expulsion of Armenians from Western Armenia, the fall of the First Republic of Armenia. Here a question rises whether the reason of such downfalls was our wish of restoring unity or there have been other, rather objective reasons.

The loss of “Unity” as an expression of ontological crisis that has crept up the Armenians has been the result and consequence of permanent change in the civilized environment surrounding Armenia. By acknowledging our own powerlessness against such objective challenge we started to look for new paradigms of our unity instead of physical-geographical standards, that is, trying to compensate the loss of political basis of self-organization by means of spiritual, cultural, economic and other arguments.

Our great thinkers of the medieval period considered the primary basis for defining “nation” not as much the area, language and kinship but rather the faith and church tradition, that is doctrine, rituals and ceremonies. In new times the scientific basis for restoring the political Armenia as an entity was founded by the Mkhitarist fathers in Venice while the value-civilization pillars for that new unity of Armenia and Armenians were created on the basis of ideas of the European Enlightenment. By encountering the resistance, which was contrasting in form but united in its essence, of powers that have conquered Armenia this new perception of unity finally came up to the strategy of exercising asylum land collection through the restoration of independent statehood on the certain part of national land.

Thus it went on up to nowadays when the hopeful realities of the restoration of the West-Russia common civilization area began to emerge. Therefore the 100th anniversary of the adoption of the state act of United and Independent Armenia must bring our political consciousness which is deep in sand of routine closer to the height of new interstate and international priorities that correspond to the circumstantial changes of civilized environment that surrounds us.

Armenia is unable to be compared with its main rivals in terms of its economic, demographic and quantity standards of military capability deriving from them and because of scarcity of natural resources and low rates of demographic growth will continue to lag behind them. Hence a nationwide consensus must be formed in its political leadership and among main political forces for the creation of technological society with its needful political, economic and cultural priorities.

Only due to the usage of quality resources accumulated by the Armenian people through centuries and the formation of technological society in Armenia it is possible to secure the proper scientific-technological dominance in the region which will allow us also to compete in the battlefield with our neighbours that outnumber us and bring to life the idea of United and Independent Armenia.