The article examines the relationship between history, nationalism, and empire by addressing the conditions and limits under which it is possible to write one’s “own” history. Proceeding from the premise that history is never a neutral or self-evident reality, the article argues that national historiography is shaped not only by internal demands of identity formation but also by imperial and modern regimes of power. Nationalism is thus conceptualized not as a natural convergence of the national and the political, but as an expression of the structural impossibility of such convergence within imperial arrangements. Within these arrangements, national identity both resists imperial domination and internalizes its epistemic frameworks and governing techniques. Drawing on the Armenian historical experience, the article analyzes the formation of national self-perception within a multilayered imperial context, structured by intersecting religious, communal, and legal affiliations, and examines the emergence of the imperative to define the national in the nineteenth-century context of modernization. Engaging postcolonial theory, the article demonstrates that national self-narratives are never fully emancipated from imperial legacies; postcolonial inquiry, therefore, does not offer a definitive identity but instead exposes the fractures, silences, and internal contradictions through which national narratives are continuously reconstituted. By critically assessing the principles of “people’s history” and the “national liberation struggle,” the article highlights their methodological limitations, particularly the dependence of political subjectivity and emancipatory claims on external recognition. It concludes that the aspiration to write a fully autonomous history functions less as an attainable project than as a regulative horizon. Accordingly, the primary task of historiography is not the construction of a unified national narrative, but the recovery of marginalized experiences and the preservation of the freedom of historical thought as a fundamental condition of political existence.
Tag Archives: modernization
DELIBERATIVE COMMUNICATION AS A CONDITION FOR DEMOCRATISING PUBLIC POLICY IN ARMENIA
With the establishment of the new world order, there is a need to reevaluate the public policy democratization issues to address the challenges and uncertainties of modern political turbulence. The interconnected nature of the uncertainties stemming from contemporary political development crises underscores the necessity of studying deliberative communication to enhance democratization in Armenia. This emphasizes the need to integrate deliberative and participatory democracies to enhance dialogue between the state and civil society. In the RA, a similar approach is essential for preventing internal and external turmoil by establishing mechanisms for the evolutionary modernization of the political system. This will facilitate a shift from revolutionary methods toward a more inclusive democratic transition, focusing on a “transition to consolidation” with ongoing modernization as a strategic goal.
The primary aim is to regard the public interest as the foundation of polyarchic elite activity through the genuine convergence of deliberative and participatory democracy in Armenia and to mitigate information-communication (IC) manipulations. Simultaneously, citizen socialization is justified to avert marginalization and alienation within the public consciousness.
The theoretical and practical significance of this research lies in illuminating the evolutionary modernization of the political system by justifying deliberative communication as a crucial element in the democratization of public policy. The insights derived from this study can be integrated into programs aimed at fostering a “transition-consolidation” democracy in Armenia.
The research findings can facilitate the optimization of interactions between the state authorities and civil society organizations.