Knowledge and Acknowledgement in the Politics of Memory of the Armenian Genocide

Vahagn Avedian

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9780429845154
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: History

Is the Armenian Genocide a strictly historical matter? If that is the case, why is it still a topical issue, capable of causing diplomatic rows and heated debates? The short answer would be that the century old Armenian Genocide is much more than a historical question. It emerged as a political dilemma on the international arena at the San Stefano peace conference in 1878 and has remained as such into our days. The disparity between knowledge and acknowledgement, mainly ascribable to Turkey's official denial of the genocide, has only heightened the politicization of the Armenian question. Thus, the memories of the WWI era refuse to be relegated to the pages of history but are rather perceived as a vivid presence. This is the result of the perpetual process of politics of memory.

The politics of memory is an intricate and interdisciplinary negotiation, engaging many different actors in the society who have access to a wide range of resources and measures in order to achieve their goals. By following the Armenian question during the past century up to its Centennial Commemoration in 2015, this study aims to explain why and how the politics of memory of the Armenian Genocide has kept it as a topical issue in our days.

1 The politics of memory

An intricate perpetual process

It is widely accepted that we are experiencing a boom of memory studies, especially in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the post-Communist era in Europe, where the Holocaust and the post-WWII era have a prominent position.¹ One of the important impacts of the Holocaust on contemporary studies was breaking the norm of history being written by the victors. As Jan-Werner Müller puts it, the post-Holocaust study of memory is characterized by “the shift from a ‘history for the victors’ or, in Nietzsche’s terms, ‘monumental history’, to a ‘history of the victims.’”² Another aspect of the evolution of Holocaust studies has been its key factor in the increased interest in the non-medical study of trauma and memories. It is hardly surprising that memory studies concerning traumatic events dominate the field, observed in the “‘catastrophic’ history of the twentieth century,” ³ which has also been called the “century of genocide.” Thus, before moving on, it is appropriate to make a short reflection on the usage of the Holocaust in this study.

There are couple of reasons why the Holocaust is rendered a rather salient part here. The foremost reason, as already mentioned, is the immense impact the Holocaust has had on memory studies and its related topics. The extensive and versatile research conducted regarding the WWII events and the post-war German response is recognized as a major contributor to the field, both in regard to the empirical data, but foremost in regard to its theories. Consequently, the Holocaust and the German experience have become a frequent example to illustrate the measures used within the politics of memory. Second, being an interdisciplinary field, genocide research is well-suited for comparative studies. To that end, the Holocaust is often used as a yard stick even though it is rather a paradigm than an example suited for generic comparison.⁴ Ironically, the Armenian case, often dubbed as the archetype or prototype, is more eligible for that role.⁵ One could ascribe the same paradigm to the post-WWII handling of the memories in Germany, a consequence of the unique set of parameters set by the Cold War era. It should be pointed out that the intention here is not to plead why the Armenian Genocide must be placed on par with the Holocaust, but to show how they have interacted within the politics of memory. The Holocaust, as David B. MacDonald duly notes, “provides an unrivaled moral clarity in historical representation … and will continue to occupy a privileged place in genocide studies, and in Western consciousness more generally.”⁶ This unique position implies that the Armenian Genocide, even when and if recognized more widely, will perhaps never have the same “social resonance” or the same “contribution to national memory, as the Holocaust” does in Europe and USA.⁷ Nonetheless, the aftermath of the Holocaust and WWII is still useful, especially in highlighting the diverging paths chosen by post-WWI Turkey compared to the post-WWII Germany in several similar circumstances. What is more significant here is not the temporal case-by-case comparison, but the respective society’s choice of handling the past as it is about how the international community’s policies guided towards that choice and reinforced it. Finally, the Holocaust and its memory, as we will see in the empirical part, have a special relation to the Armenian Genocide, foremost in regard to the latter’s recognition process. While prominent Holocaust scholars and their research have had a pivotal role in setting the framework employed within the political circles, other Holocaust related issues such as the US Holocaust Museum have also had a fundamental part in shaping the politics of the memory of the Armenian Genocide. The Holocaust is thereby an almost integral part of the recognition process of the Armenian Genocide. As such, the Holocaust and its aftermath are utilized rather as an instrument across the different aspects of the politics of memory throughout this study. Indeed, the frequent usage of the Holocaust has truly transformed it from a historical event into a political one in our days. The same, as illustrated in this study, can be attributed to the Armenian case.

The politics of memory explained through its constituent parts

Memory is not only a central concept to the politics of memory but an important fabric of our being. Our individual memories not only define our identity but also act as an imperative factor and reference point, which we call experience, in our everyday orientation. A sudden loss of memory or an illness such as Alzheimers shatters the individual identity and in turn the individual’s functioning in the society. In the same manner, identity is an essential building block of modern day societies and nation-states and as such also highly susceptible to political and social influences and prevailing circumstances.⁸ Identity is also the medium through which the memories are filtered, interpreted and stored. As we will see, this is mainly done in a negotiation process of the politics of memory. In this study, the issue of identity becomes most visible in the Turkish case, both in regard to the nation-building measures in the immediate post-WWI era and the creation of a “Turkey for Turks,” but also a major factor in the subsequent genocide denial, reflecting the stigmatization of the term genocide and its relation to the Holocaust. The Armenian identity is subjected to a similar influence, but from a victim’s perspective.

But how does memory, or perhaps more significantly, its inherent power, translate into the national and international arena? What role does the official narrative, often represented by history, play in this production of memories and their propagation? As a consequence, one needs to understand how history is created through a selective process of an often heterogeneous and sometimes contradicting set of memories. However, while memories are indeed the building blocks of history, the latter is far from simply a collection of the former. As elaborated further ahead, history is the result of an analytical processing of the existing data, including memories. History emerges through a process of the politics of memory, namely the “ongoing intellectual and political negotiations. The products of these negotiations may achieve a certain degree of stability for a period of time, but they are constantly subject to challenges and alternative interpretations.”⁹ What is more important, “memories of a nation’s past and institutional practices are mutually constitutive and shaped by political contingencies.”¹⁰ This view is shared by Karl Wilds, who states that “memory is a historically specific and politically malleable concept whose meaning can only be apprehended in context.”¹¹ This context can be provided by different measures such as prevailing policies, often backed up by the existing history and its narrative. As such, history differs in one substantial aspect from memory, namely in being a synthesis of both empirical data and theories, old and new. Thus, new theories alone, offering new perspectives, might revise the existing history, which in turn could result in a new set of memories. The fact that a revised history transfers to a new set of memories is captured well by Raul Hilberg’s observation that as the written words “take the place of the past; these words, rather than the events themselves, will be remembered.”¹² Both memory and history are thereby subject to change, but in different manners. Speaking in the terms of a nation, the outcome of this process often transforms into the nation’s collective memory, but also affects its identity. Prevailing policies, as part of the politics of memory, have thereby a prominent role in the formation of the memory, the subsequent identity and its development.¹³ This relation between the past and the present, as this study will illuminate, gives us the notion of “the presence of the history.”

How, then, does history relate to politics and in what way could these influence each other? The political atmosphere is one of the important aspects in the politics of memory, especially in regard to the role of present-day democracy. Processing memories, especially in the aftermath of committed wrongdoings, becomes an indicator for the status of the democracy. Simultaneously, the institutions in the democracy can employ and affect the process of the politics of memory in different ways. Studying this process shows how society chooses to handle those memories, what measures it employs to that end and how democracy and memory affect each other. One such means at the disposal of decision-makers is the role of the law, which can be equally utilized by the public through calls for justice. By telling wrong from right, the law and justice are thereby formidable tools in condoning as well as condemning memories and identities. In fact, the legal system is itself a memory bank consisting of past actions, their interpretation and corresponding codification in order to prevent and rebuke future events. As we will see further ahead, law and justice have a multifaceted role in the politics of memory and are employed frequently to mold identities, confirm democratic values or to serve in different aspects of a reconciliatory process, by remembering as well as forgetting.

Finally, this leads us to the process of reconciliation and its constituent parts as additional auxiliary measures for illustrating the inner mechanism of the politics of memory. What does a reconciliatory process consist of and how does it contribute to the politics of memory? If memories represent the past, reconciliation is certainly associated with the future. Reconciliation is a natural focal point in any post-conflict society which is trying to move forward, healing the wounds and achieving an equilibrium between victim and perpetrator. But, what does reconciliation imply and how is it achieved? The relation to memory is established by the fact that reconciliatory measures – here identified as a trinity of recognition, responsibility and reparation – often imply processing memories, whether through remembering or forgetting. Furthermore, reconciliation is sometimes perceived as a concrete step in the normalization of relations between victim and perpetrator. This is, as this study will suggest, an incorrect assumption which can actually be counterproductive when initiating a rapprochement. Instead, reconciliation is rather the synthesis of its component parts where these, individually and collectively, play an important role in the outcome of the process as a whole. It is worth emphasizing that, while examining the reconciliation process, it is not the different alternative approaches – for example, retributive versus restorative justice, track two diplomacy etc. – that are of interest here. Instead, it is the role of the above-mentioned trinity which is in focus and the impact of their presence or absence within the politics of memory.

Memory and history in the politics of memory

As Hirsch points out, our perception of the past has “a profound impact on what we will do and how we will live. Memory is, therefore, a distinctly political phenomenon and requires analysis as possibly the most important aspect of political understanding.”¹⁴ The memories and their produced collective narrative become formidable tools in nation-building, laying a national course and justifying the measures taken to attain it. This hegemony not only controls the past but the construction of the future as well.¹⁵ In short “[m]emory is a struggle over power and who gets to decide the future.”¹⁶ The p...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. The politics of memory: An intricate perpetual process
• 2. The Armenian question between history and politics
• 3. The rediscovery of the suppressed genocide
• 4. Memory, history and justice: Towards reconciliation
• 5. Knowledge and (dis)acknowledgement: A century of the politics of memory of the Armenian Genocide
• Bibliography
• Index