On Two Factors of National Identity: Orientation and Social Structure of Society
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v7i2.143Keywords:
national identity, geopolitical orientation, social structure, methodology of historical studies, Israel Ori, Leo, Ashot HovhannisyanAbstract
Given peculiarity of Armenian history, the Armenian political thought for centuries debated around geopolitical orientation between neighboring great powers. In post-Soviet reflections, however, the emphasis has been moved towards self-reliance, and the very principle of political orientation was questioned. The attitude towards Israel Ori, whose name was viewed as a symbol of the principle of orientation, became the locums for determining the political-ideological disposition of debater, as well as understanding their approaches towards different concepts of national identity.
A brief comparison between the conceptual paradigms of two renowned historians Ashot Hovhannisyan (1887-1972) and Leo (Arakel Babakhanyan, 1860-1932) in relation to their attitude towards Israel Ori aims to demonstrate that questioning of the very principle of orientation has much deeper roots in Armenian historical studies than commonly is believed. It also illuminates the complex relationship between principle of orientation and desired model of social structure of society, which these two classics have revealed in rather different ways.
Downloads
References
Hovhannisyan, A. (1955, 1956). Nalbandyany’ & nra jhamanaky’ (Nalbandyan and his Time, in Armenian). Vol. 1 & 2. Yerevan: Haypethrat.
Hovhannisyan, A. (1957, 1959). Drvagner hay azatagrakan mtqi patmut’yunic (Episodes from the History of Armenian Liberation Thought, in Armenian). Vol. 1 & 2. Yerevan: HSSR GA hratarakchutyun.
Ishkhanian, R. (1991). The Law of Excluding the Third Force. In G. J. Libaridian (Ed.) Armenia at the Crossroads. Democracy and Nationhood in the Post-Soviet Era. Blue Crane Books, Watertown, Mass.
Johannissjan, A. (2016). Israel Ori und die Armenische Befreiungsidee. Inagural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philosophischen Fakultät (1. Sektion) der K. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität zu München vorgelegt von Aschot Johannissjan. In Hovhannisyan, A. (2016). Israel Orin & hay azatagrakan gaghapary’ (Israel Ori and the Armenian Liberation Idea, in Armenian). Yerevan: Hovhannisyan institut.
Leo. (1934). Khojayakan kapitaly’ & nra qaghaqakan-hasarakakan dery’ hayoc mej. Drvagner hay kgherakan divanagitut’yan patmut’yunic (The Merchant Capital and its Political-Social Role for Armenians: Episodes from the History of Armenian Clerical Diplomacy, in Armenian) Vol. I. Yerevan: Pethrat.
Leo. (1994). T’urqahay heghap’okhut’yan gaghap’arabanut’yuny’ (The Ideology of the Turkish-Armenian Revolution, in Armenian). Vol. A. Yerevan: Shaghik.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984).The Postmodern Condition. l. Manchester University Press.
Nalbandian, M. (1985). Yerkragorc’ut’yuny’ vorpes ughigh twanaparh (Agriculture as a Straight Way). In M. Nalbandian Collection of Works. Yerevan: Sovetakan grogh.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC). CC BY-NC allows users to copy and distribute the article, provided this is not done for commercial purposes. The users may adapt – remix, transform, and build upon the material giving appropriate credit, and providing a link to the license. The full details of the license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
