Cultural Issue Paper
by Tom Samuelian (2003) for Armenia2020
I. Current Situation
Like most small nations, Armenia’s culture is at risk. Globalization, dispersion, sovietization and assimilation have made nearly all Armenians bi- and multi-cultural. Certain arts and aspects of culture, particularly popular culture, are difficult to sustain without large markets, e.g., film or recorded music, because of their relatively high costs. Others, such as literary culture, are endangered in the Diaspora by dwindling numbers of Armenians literate enough to be a market and support Armenian language-based culture. In Armenia, there is a general decline of “reading culture” as foreign-language-based culture, literature, film, and music, occupy a greater place in people’s life. These are compounded by a number of trends:
(1) Armenian culture-makers, artists and writers, are themselves becoming more global and their talent and urge for novelty draws them to global trends. Some manage to keep a balance between Armenian material and global material in their art; many do not. Modern archetypes of this phenomenon might include Khachaturyan in classical music, or Saroyan in literature. Thus, what passes for Armenian culture is largely global or foreign art produced by an Armenian with an Armenian twist. In addition, because artists’ works are often at odds with conventional tastes, they feel alienated and because of the scarcity of finances feel abandoned and rejected by Armenian society. This leads to a kind of disdain toward Armenian culture and the audience/market for that culture that further deepens their sense of alienation.
(2) Continuing a long trend that started in ancient times through contact with Greek, Roman, Persian and later various Christian cultures, there has been a good deal of fusion of culture. This was followed by the impact of Ottoman, Russian, Soviet, and Western European and Middle Eastern cultures on Modern Armenian culture, which accelerated with the 19th Century, post-Genocide dispersion, and the Soviet era.
(3) A separate trend of a weakened and distorted cultural base is specific to the Soviet era. The Soviet era both developed and distorted Armenian culture, since certain kinds of culture central to Armenians, e.g., Christian culture, were suppressed and vilified. This caused a reaction in the diaspora and is part of the Cold War erosion that may or may not be reparable.
II. Some Drivers of the Armenian Cultural Sphere
1. Resources. Large legacy, currently small resources in Armenia to maintain this legacy.
1.1. Small culture, endangered by globalism. It is not well-known enough to have a place in majority cultures and not strong enough to define itself, for example, the hijacking of Armenian identity, e.g., Armenians as substitutes for Italians or Russians as organized crime/gang figures in American primetime TV programs, Hack, Dragnet.
1.2. High costs of certain kinds of modern media – e.g., film, cartoons, drama, theatre, classical music, opera. These are usually not self-financing for small markets, like the Armenian market. Therefore, patronage (private and public) plays a large role in the culture that is produced, develops and survives.
1.3. Patronage vs. the market impact on Armenian culture. Large patrons and cultural organizations (Tekeyan, Ministry of Culture, Hamazkayin, other groups) often treat Armenian culture and institutions as their turf. Their tastes may coincide with that of the most talented Armenian artists, Armenian cultural excellence, or the cultural needs of the Armenian nation, or they may not. The same distortions may occur in the demand of the market, which is driven by the tastes of consumers who may or may not appreciate the best in Armenian culture.
1.4. Expectations of Support from the State. Despite the distortions it caused, the Soviet state supported a wide range of artists and scholars, who have been shocked by the realities of a market economy in an under-resourced country. Indeed, a part of soviet “nationalities management policy” was to threaten culture and repress unwelcome artistic expression. The next step was then to show a friendly face by supporting and cultivating the art of “acceptable” artists, who often felt loyalty (or at least had a financial interest in) toward the state and projected that gratitude to their audiences.
1.5. Generation Change. Armenian strengths and traditions in graphic arts, music, architecture, literature and film, are all endangered by lack of resources to assure transmission of these “schools of cultural skills.” Once lost they are difficult to reconstitute or resuscitate.
2. Special Characteristics of Armenian Culture
2.1. Unique language, unique alphabet. Armenian culture, especially language-based culture, is complicated. It has two dialects (Eastern and Western) and two orthographies (Classical and Soviet). It has absorbed overlays of at least 4-5 other languages, depending upon the sub-dialect (e.g., Russian, English, French, Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Spanish). The costs of accommodating such differences in the digital age may exceed the capacity of the small market. There is an urgent need to address the problems of the alphabet and orthography in the computer age, a need for standardized computer coding system and a need for a common approach to new words.
2.2. The place of culture in Armenian identity. For Armenians, in reaction to the Genocide and the repression of Soviet rule, maintaining the uniqueness of culture was a form of defiance. As those feeling have waned, the emotional energy that reinforced this attachment to Armenian culture has also declined. The natural lines of transmission in villages and communities have been disrupted in most cases beyond repair, both in the diaspora as a result of the Genocide, and in Armenia as a result of urbanization. In the diaspora, this has resulted in culture being more often transmitted by the smallest units of society, families, rather than by communities or institutions such as schools, churches or cultural institutions.
2.3. Armenian culture has undergone cycles of reconstitution from various sources. In the modern era (19-20th centuries), Western European and Russian culture became a catalyst and important ingredient in the respective branches of Armenian culture. After the Genocide, as part of the Soviet effort to create a new all-union culture, Armenian culture was reconstituted under the influence of soviet ideology. Once again with independence and de-Sovietization, Armenian culture is going through a cycle of reconstitution. It remains to be seen whether the Armenian nation has the institutional capacity to assure a sustainable reconstitution of Armenian culture after the cold war and Soviet era.
2.4. Armenians in Armenia have a soviet overlay over their branch of Armenian culture. Armenians in the diaspora have a variety of overlays depending upon their origin e.g., Ottoman, followed by Mid-East, followed by European or American and So. American/Australian. In Russia, there is a heavy Russian overlay. It goes without saying that among these many permutations, it is often hard to find common cultural ground.
2.5. Armenian culture is dispersed, especially archives, books, and living culture/ethnography. This physical dispersion has greatly increased the cost and difficulty of preserving and reintegrating these remnants of dance, song, culinary and oral culture into the living culture of Armenian communities.
3. Church
3.1. Inaccessibility of Christian cultural forms. The ambivalence of post-Soviet Armenia toward the Christian base of much of Armenian culture, and its inability to relate to Church leaves the society cut off from a large part of Armenian culture. While Narek, for example, can be read as poetry, its spiritual content demands at least an openness to Christian spirituality, which is largely inaccessible for the secularized, post-soviet Armenian audience as well as for the post-modern Diaspora. Similarly, much of Armenian music has roots in church ritual, which is unfamiliar to many Armenians. The problem is further exacerbated by inexperience in presentation and discussion of these forms of culture. Those who know this culture are often unable to talk about it in a way that attracts adherents and those who appreciate it are often pharisaical in approach, driving people away by their rigidity and fervor.
3.2. Church vs. state as keeper of culture. While the church for centuries was the keeper of its churches, theological literature, liturgical rites and sacred music, in the soviet era, this function was largely taken over by the Soviet State and continues to be carried out at least in part by such institutions as the Ministry of Culture, Matenadaran, Conservatory, Academy of Sciences and University. The Church may have access to more resources as a transnational institution with a relatively wealthier constituency in the Diaspora than the state has through its taxpayer base with all of the other demands of maintaining and developing the state (education, health, etc.).
4. Alienation/Distortion/Globalism
4.1. Bi- and multi-culturalism of most Armenians. One of the key issues is which of the internalized cultures becomes ascendant – majority culture or Armenian culture. In the late Soviet period there was a threat that Russian culture would prevail as majority culture over Armenian culture even in Armenia.
4.2. Atrophy of Armenian language proficiency. Much of Armenian culture is inaccessible to non-Armenian-speaking diasporans and much is out of synch with their modern, majority culture personas and value systems.
4.3. Assimilation, especially in the Diaspora, poses a major threat to the audience/consumer base for Armenian culture. The smaller this base, the harder Armenian culture becomes to sustain.
4.4. The internet is becoming a major new medium for connecting Armenians. However, the medium has its limitations. It shapes and distorts the message, with the greatest danger being the loss of message in the midst of the noise.
4.5. A large part of Armenian architectural culture is under threat throughout Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan and the Mid-East. This is not a uniquely Armenian phenomenon as William Dalrymple chronicles in From the Holy Mountain, his account of vanishing Eastern Christian culture.
4.6. Cultural tourism, tourism routes, pilgrimage routes through Armenia. Opportunities exist both in the Diaspora, within international and European institutions, such as the Council of Europe, and general market tourism to secure a place for Armenian culture and make it more sustainable through tourism. Contextualizing Armenian culture in this way may also help overcome the disadvantages of distance, costs of promotion, and a small market. There is significant synergy between cultural tourism and nature tourism, adventure tourism, performing arts and culinary and native performing arts.
Scenarios
1. Rescued Renaissance. Armenian Culture undergoes a renaissance. Through contacts in the Diaspora (including the new Diaspora from Armenia), Eastern and Western Armenian Cultures are fused into a common Armenian culture which has deeper roots antedating the 17-18th century split forced by Russian, Ottoman and Persian empires. Armenians share and promote their culture and it gains recognition in wider European and world culture. Armenian culture occupies a place it has not held since the Armenian renaissance of the 10th Century, when saints such as St. Gregory of Narek, could write for and be revered by all of Christendom, and architects such as Trdat and Manvel could build major works for world capitals, in the highly respected style of Armenian Architecture .
2. Tolerant Separatism. Armenian Culture continues to grow in two overlapping Eastern and Western layers, with intermingling, but tolerant followers. Resources are divided, but still sufficient.
3. Splintering Impoverishment. Armenian culture splinters yet further. Each sub-group competes for resources resulting in destructive, alienating competition. In a case of market failure, much Armenian culture is lost as well as its following in the Diaspora and homeland. In its impoverished state, most people turn to cheaper, easily available global culture.
4. Dwindling Elitism. Armenian culture becomes the province of a small elite, that refuses to share it with their people. Gradually they dwindle for lack of resources, albeit continuing to have their patrons. Armenian culture is overwhelmed by global culture and but a vestige remains.
5. Rabiz (low quality, popular culture) East & West. In an effort to survive, Armenian culture becomes more commercial and tends toward the lowest common denominator, which is global culture. Some superficial Armenian aspects survive in a “knock offs” (cheap copies) of other cultures (e.g., Mid-East or Russian or Turkish or US). The spirit of Armenian culture is lost.
