No abstract

No abstract

This article offers an account of Syria’s substantial Armenian diasporic community, concentrating on how it negotiated its integration without assimilation into the larger Syrian society (itself not homogeneous but long dominated by a single political system). The analysis relies on themes and approaches developed by subaltern studies; ideas drawn from it enable us to delineate the trajectory of the diasporan community. Successfully maintaining its distinct cultural identity as a result of the closed nature of the political system, and further buttressed by the religio-cultural barriers between the Armenian Christian community and the Arab Muslim dominant groups, this community has nevertheless accepted permanent subalternization; it has failed to develop its full potential in cultural creativity and political confidence. Neither the technological nor the economic forces emanating from globalization, despite the liberalization policies pursued under the Asad governments, have proved sufficient to change the closed nature of the Syrian political economy. The permanent peripheralization of the Armenians in Syria has meant that they either dwell voicelessly in the realm of diasporan subalternities or exit. The community has declined, in terms of both numbers and vitality, since the early 1960s. This article proposes a theoretical framework that combines studies of diasporan transformation and Albert Hirschman’s analysis of “voice, exit, and loyalty” in order to develop a more complete picture of the evolution of an exilic community into a diasporic community and, finally, its decline and potential dissolution.

This article offers an account of Syria’s substantial Armenian diasporic community, concentrating on how it negotiated its integration without assimilation into the larger Syrian society (itself not homogeneous but long dominated by a single political system). The analysis relies on themes and approaches developed by subaltern studies; ideas drawn from it enable us to delineate the trajectory of the diasporan community. Successfully maintaining its distinct cultural identity as a result of the closed nature of the political system, and further buttressed by the religio-cultural barriers between the Armenian Christian community and the Arab Muslim dominant groups, this community has nevertheless accepted permanent subalternization; it has failed to develop its full potential in cultural creativity and political confidence. Neither the technological nor the economic forces emanating from globalization, despite the liberalization policies pursued under the Asad governments, have proved sufficient to change the closed nature of the Syrian political economy. The permanent peripheralization of the Armenians in Syria has meant that they either dwell voicelessly in the realm of diasporan subalternities or exit. The community has declined, in terms of both numbers and vitality, since the early 1960s. This article proposes a theoretical framework that combines studies of diasporan transformation and Albert Hirschman’s analysis of “voice, exit, and loyalty” in order to develop a more complete picture of the evolution of an exilic community into a diasporic community and, finally, its decline and potential dissolution.

The scholarship on genocide has grown exponentially since the 1970s. The two general objectives of genocide studies have been to develop more systematic explanations of causes of genocide and a deeper understanding of consequences than previously available in the literature. Genocides in the 20th century are estimated to have cost more than forty million lives. The term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin (b. 1900–d. 1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, who, in reaction to the atrocities taking place during World War II, advocated the creation of an international legal instrument to prevent genocide. His efforts led to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (9 December 1948). The convention is legally binding under international law but has become the subject of much heated debate, mostly regarding contending definitions of “genocide.” A consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed (although were not limited to) the following cases: Herero in 1904–1907, the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915–1923, the Holodomor in the former Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933, the Jewish Holocaust in 1938–1945, Bangladesh in 1971, Cambodia in 1975–1979, East Timor in 1975–1999, Bosnia in 1991–1995, and Rwanda in 1994. The diversity of subject areas, theories, and methodologies in genocide studies notwithstanding, most work is primarily concerned with the role of the perpetrator state; the nature of leadership; the ability of the leaders to transform ordinary men into murderers and bureaucracies into instruments of murder; and, finally, how to prevent future genocides. Although a small number of scholarly works have also paid attention to followers and bystanders, this area requires more research, as does genocide prevention. Regardless of the paucity of scholarly literature on genocide prevention, the European Union, in cooperation with the government of Hungary, took the significant step of establishing, in 2011, the Budapest Centre for the International Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities.