Growing up with a long-awaited nation-state: Personal struggles with the homeland among young diasporic Armenians

Abstract

This paper explores identification with the nation-state as homeland among young diasporic Armenians in France, Russia and the United Kingdom (UK). For dispersed Armenian communities worldwide, the emergence of a fragile nation-state since 1991 has represented a form of collective goal fulfilment accompanied at times by disillusionment in the national myth of the homeland as a place of sanctuary. We argue that the resulting shift in understandings of homeland markedly differentiates the diasporic experiences of Armenians of diverse backgrounds growing up in the post-independence era from those of previous generations. Key to this shift are ambivalent dynamics between memory and myth integral to personal struggles with the homeland. Analysing original interviews with Armenians aged 18 to 35 in three host states, we unpack how memories of contact with the Armenian state accumulated in youth interact with national myths about the homeland in the context of different family migration histories. The active engagement of young people with homeland myths is shown to play an important role in their recollections of first formative visits to Armenia. Through more regular contact with the state, disappointment in elements of politics and culture that clash with personal imaginings of the homeland can lead to ambivalence in identifying with Armenia. Ultimately, the state plays a key orienting role for many young diasporic Armenians, but clashes between recalled encounters and myths concerning the state can render it a place of partial belonging, unable to fulfil the ideals of the diasporic imagination. The findings highlight the value of attending to interaction between memory and myth in diasporic engagement with ‘homeland’ states more broadly.

Diaspora Identity and a New Generation: Armenian Diaspora Youth on the Genocide and the Karabakh War

“…The state, however, was mostly criticized for not prioritizing people’s security in conflict negotiations and for not being hardline or decisive enough. Moreover, interviewees often approached Karabakh as part of a set of problems facing the Armenian government (such as corruption), and their critical or oppositional attitudes to state policies contributed to a certain sense of political disunity with the homeland (see Wilmers and Chernobrov 2019):The country’s resources are mostly oriented towards enriching the politicians, and this is the problem. The four-day war [in Karabakh] revealed big problems with military equipment, so here in France we led appeals to help Armenian soldiers … they don’t have raincoats, sleeping bags, drones, other things….…”