Looking Beyond the Diaspora Structure


The study of the Armenian Diaspora is not a new fad, but it sure sounds like a new fantasy. On November 20, 2010, the Institute of Armenian Studies at the University of Southern California organized a symposium to (re)introduce the idea of a centralized structure for the Armenian Diaspora. What is commendable at first glance is the attempt by the Institute to embrace a didactic hue of Armenian politics and an understanding of its policy processes. It is commendable because the established Armenian Studies programs have long ignored the political discipline in their curriculum and have traditionally fulfilled the extensive intellectual needs in the disciplines of History, Arts, Language, and Literature, largely ignoring the social sciences in general and political science in particular. Social disciplines have been treated as somewhat peripheral to the mainstream Armenian interests.

Since its inception in 2005, the Institute of Armenian Studies at USC has offered promises of understanding contemporary Armenian politics in Diaspora. Incorporating political studies into Armenian Studies appeared to be an important breakthrough as the Institute often stimulated thoughtful discussions about future directions of political life and relations both in Armenia and the Diaspora. However, the purpose of the Institute in organizing such a symposium does not seem to be heuristic. In order to advance our understanding of the Armenian Diaspora, we need to go beyond the simple and often ritualized presentation of ideas and practices of Diaspora life and situation.

I have said this elsewhere and I will say it again here. The Armenian Diaspora, much like any other entity, begs for exploration of long neglected basic classes of explanatory concepts which will furnish a full and an adequate understanding of its politics. This is simply a preliminary consideration before we jump into structural discussions and conclusions. Political structure is just one of the many underlying explanatory variables of an entity. It is imperative for both practitioners and scholars of Armenian political affairs to develop a comprehensive understanding of the Diaspora and make effective use of the existing political knowledge. The phenomenal presence of the Armenian Diaspora cannot be appreciated without the basic explanatory concepts including, for example, the dynamics of political culture, behavior, socialization, personality, and even somatology for an understanding of human nature as a key component of political life. Such concepts need to be tackled as requirements for an adequate understanding and explanation of all political phenomena including the Armenian Diaspora. The political concept of structure alone will not be sufficient to understand Diaspora as a functioning polity, let alone the assumption that a centralized structure will give it more efficiency.  

Many assumptions in our effort to understand the Armenian Diaspora fail to capture the essence of its polity. To depart from appropriate ground knowledge and avoid theoretical dearth, key questions should be tackled before we jump into structural conclusions. These questions should be drawn from the basic explanatory concepts I mentioned above and confronted as primordial challenges for the Diaspora understanding: What is, for example, the constitutive knowledge of the Armenian Diaspora? What are its component units? How do the component units sustain the Diaspora entity? What are the predispositions, motives, and goals of individual Diaspora Armenians and their learned patterns of behavior that come into play over a wide variety of behavioral traits? What correlation or compatibility exists between political culture and political structure? Notably, the concept of political culture here refers to the system of meanings and symbols transmitted from generation to generation in the Diaspora polity and its key components include ideology as well as preferences, values in political action, hopes, expectations, discontents, and beliefs in legitimacy. Also, how individuals are politically socialized, recruited, and play a Diaspora role? Finally, the key concept of behavior, or the political processes that go on within the political structure are primary considerations for a holistic picture of the Diaspora. At best, we are stuck in the observation of why people in the Armenian Diaspora act in the way they do politically, say, participate (or not) in an organization, support or follow, argue, lead, negotiate, vote, or make choices. In sum, many of us in the Diaspora have come to recognize the need to take these questions into account in our effort to understand, explain, and categorize the Diaspora as a purposive and functioning entity.

For an adequate structural discussion of the Armenian Diaspora, all those explanatory factors should be clarified in the background. It would be too simplistic and easy to depart from the generic consideration that polities need to have some form of centralized, governmental structure in order to function effectively and endure. This consideration reasonably suggests that all political entities attempt to develop a cohesive political structure in order to comprise the society they form into a unified actor. This certainly is true for a state entity, but for the Diaspora, a nonstate and trans-societal entity, it might be a recipe to destroy its dynamic nature.

Razmig B. Shirinian is a Professor of Political Science at the College of the Canyons


Discussion Policy

Comments are welcomed and encouraged. Though you are fully responsible for the content you post, comments that include profanity, personal attacks or other inappropriate material will not be permitted. Asbarez reserves the right to block users who violate any of our posting standards and policies.


  1. Arthur said:

    Bravo! Frist time I read the scolar who understands what we need as a diaspora!
    He is not a narsistic idiot like Harut Sasunian.

  2. Dork Angegh said:

    A centralized structure with center independent from the Diaspora’s country’s local government system is either a trap or an idiotic dream. It cannot exist even if the particular country’s main ethnicity is a cousin of the Diaspora’s (e.g. Georgia, Persia, Lebanon, to name a few). Therefore, if we are still talking about a centralized political structure for a diaspora, it must either be assumed that it is not independent, meaning, it is controlled by the local government of that country, or it is in fact a temporary destructive trap aiming to ethnically cleans the diaspora group (in a passive manner) once for all. The only way a centralized structure is effective is when the center has good relationship with the nodes of the ethnic topology, and the center itself is effectively protected by the nodes. This implies the existence of land barriers in which the center is located, and an effective defense system surrounded by the elements. Anything other than this is a recipe for destruction (i.e. I agree with the author).

  3. MINASSIAN Gaïdz said:

    Dear Sir, I read your article and appreciate your approach. What you say is not wrong, and we have in France, myself being a political scientist, consulting constitutional experts, specialists in sociology, legal history, philosophers and experts in transnationalism. We arrived at the conclusion of a project, the French-Armenian Council, compatible with the french socio-political realities. We have not been designed to reflect the whole of the Diaspora, but the symposium on Nov. 20 at USC is a link, an early reflection. Maybe you did your place in the debates, I agree completely, and it would surely lessen your reaction a bit epidermal sweating in your paper. Best regards, Gaïdz Minassian (France)

  4. amb said:

    What we need is a new NARRATIVE, to better place the situation Armenians, both in Armenia and the Diaspora, find themselves in the world. To place the position of Armenians in the world, in a new perspective, a more apt and adopted way of explaining to ourselves and others who we are, how we fit together and with others in these times of the 21st century and for the coming era .

      • amb said:

        Well, dear Anna, it’s not a one-person job to do this. I am thinking we need artists and philosophers and political scientists (or scientists in general), historians and poets and policy analysts, painters and politicians and story writers, interested average persons and intellectuals, to collectively, in a concerted and also in an unorganized manner, sort of organically which could be helped along with organization and planning, to come up with it.

        It’s not a simple, trivial task. It amounts, if you’d allow me, to creating a new myth, a new story that would make sense of our circumstances, our state of affairs as we find ourselves in the contemporary world.

        Because, dear Anna, I don’t think that the old myths are working and are beneficial for us anymore. We have them, it’s fine that we have them, they are part of our legacy and heritage, but lets leave them at that.

        To be a vibrant, relevant nation, that contributes to the affairs of the present-day world, we need a new set of stories, myths, ways of explaining and making sense of, to ourselves and others, who we are, where we stand in relation to other people and nations of the world and how do we add, have a say, in the contemporary world.

        This is no small task.

  5. Karo said:

    So before taking action, the Armenian diaspora should place itself under the political scientist’s microscope in order to produce “basic explanatory concepts [like] the dynamics of political culture, behavior, socialization, personality, and even somatology for an understanding of human nature as a key component of political life.” Even Plato’s predecessors argued about human nature. After 2,500 years, the question of whether there is such a thing as human nature remains unanswerable. So, as we wait for people like the author of this article to produce their excruciatingly tedious theories, the opportunity to take action will continue to pass us by. It does not even seem like this author bothered listening while attending the Symposium. One of the suggestions was for the Armenian diaspora to model itself on the World Zionist Organization (WZO, founded 1897). The author should consider whether the WZO first conducted the necessary decades of tedious academic theorizing in order to develop “basic explanatory concepts…for an understanding of human nature as a key component of political life.” Following the author’s logic, the WZO must have developed such concepts, since that organization was so successful in engaging and politically mobilizing the Jewish diaspora. The author’s point-of-view would have to concede this, but the author himself will likely not concede it, because things obviously did not happen that way. The WZO was successful mostly because it took action, and definitely not because it locked itself inside the fortress of academia and studied Jews from afar.

  6. Pingback: Looking Beyond the Diaspora Structure | Asbarez Armenian News | Armenia