Reclaiming Nationalism, Rejecting Chauvinism, Building Socialism

On May 28th, Independence Day (the OG one, of course, not the September 21 re-independence of 1991), I finished Houri Berberian’s latest book “Roving Revolutionaries” (well worth reading if you can make the time). Some of the issues she describes in the book that occupied our national leadership’s collective mind at the turn of the previous century are also timely today and little discussed. Inspired by the day and the book, I thought a quick look at three concepts relevant to our new, Yerevan-centered state-building effort would be worthwhile.

Let’s first dispense with the negative one of the concepts, that which no one should want guiding or informing how our state institutions evolve and solidify: chauvinism. In English, this term is relatively little heard in recent times, and perhaps most often only in the phrase “male chauvinism.” Chauvinism is an attitude of superiority held by a person about the group s/he belongs to relative to some other group. Unfortunately, we see it among our compatriots more often than I care to admit. The sense that Armenians are better than (fill in a group) must go. It can only breed the same mentality in response, leading inevitably to conflict. It must be whittled out of our national consciousness. It should be enough that chauvinism is the same diseased mindset which led to the Young Turks organizing the Genocide. Happily, Paruyr Sevag’s oft-recited poem’s first, second and final lines say it all and must serve as our beacon in this respect:

“Մենք քիչ ենք‚ սակայն մեզ հայ են ասում։
Մենք մեզ ո՛չ ոքից չենք գերադասում…
Կա՛նք: Պիտի լինե՛նք: Ու դեռ – շատանա՜նք:”
“We are few, but are called Armenians.
We don’t consider ourselves superior to anyone…
We exist. We shall continue.  And we will grow.”

The next concept I want to address is nationalism. This one is fraught with negative connotations in today’s world, thanks to a number of historical and ideological phenomena. It is very unfortunate that such is the case. The Nazis and their Holocaust, the wars fought in Europe over the past two to three centuries and ongoing conflicts in other parts of the world have led to a stigmatization of a very noble idea. Please see the accompanying table with definitions of the concept from the same dictionary’s editions of 1940, 1973 and currently online. Stunning, isn’t it, how the term has gone from something describing a collective awareness or policy bent to something negative, to the point where the definition has effectively equated to chauvinism.

Degenerating Definitions of “Nationalism”

1940 Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 5th Edition 1. National character; nationality.
2. An idiom, trait or character peculiar to any nation.
3. Devotion to, or advocacy of, national interests or national unity and independence.
4. Socialism advocating the nationalization of industries.
1973 Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 8th Edition Loyalty and dedication to a nation, esp: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
2020 Current, online 1. loyalty and devotion to a nation especially: a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational group. Intense nationalism was one of the causes of the war.
2. a nationalist movement or government opposing nationalisms.

It gets worse. Have you heard of “white nationalism” and “Islamic nationalism”? Ridiculous terms! Since when have “whites” constituted a “nation”? Armenians, Cherokees, French, Japanese and Zulus are nations. But whites? Equally, since when has it been rational to equate adherents of a religion to a nation? Islam has its notion of a community, “umma,” not nation. It’s fashionable now to attach “nationalism” to any human grouping’s name when someone wants to vilify it. Enough!  Remember, nationalism helped break up the choke-hold of empires and grotesque emperors over human beings. Nationalism helped democracy take hold in many places. People, humans, have a basic need to belong. It’s one of the major avenues by which we manifest our caring for others. The most natural group to associate with once we get past family/clan is the nation. Sure, anything taken to an extreme is bad. But nationalism is not inherently bad, any more than faith/belief systems or commitment to some cause (environment, human freedoms, etc.). I urge all those who denigrate this noble and natural sentiment to stop their misguided crusade. Nationalism is what will help us rebuild Armenian statehood.

Finally, socialism. This very word rankles and terrifies many people. It has been abused by those who allegedly implemented it. Think Soviet Union, which, when it became a dictatorship by definition forever removed itself from the universe of socialism. Socialism cannot exist in the absence of democracy. Conversely, democracy cannot long endure in the absence of socialism. Democracy addresses people’s political liberation/freedom, while socialism sees to their economic and social liberation/freedom. The term socialism has equally been abused by those who feel threatened by its egalitarianism and the hope it inspires among the largest number of people who use its guiding precepts to struggle against the tyranny of big money, corporatism or “the one percent” – a recently fashionable term. And, they have been quite successful after decades of propaganda. Socialism is a dirty word for many people.

Here’s the rub. Many of the societal and legal benefits we enjoy are the product of socialist thought, advocacy and struggle. Here are some examples from the US experience since that is the setting with which I am most familiar—the eight-hour workday/40-hour work week, Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, holidays, farmer support programs, universal public education, the right to unionize and more. You probably can’t even imagine life where workers would not be allowed to take bathroom breaks, be locked inside factories and even burn to death as happened to 146 people on March 25, 1911 in the Triangle Shirtwaist fire in New York City and a century later in the Tazreen textile factory (Dhaka, Bangladesh) on November 25, 2012. Even the environmental and consumer protections we take for granted in most western countries rise from the same ideological source. But if we continue on the route selected since the Reagan administration, all of the public goods we take for granted will be whittled away to nothing. That’s why some of these universally popular programs have been the targets of the political right wing. Didn’t you ever wonder why US public schools have been underfunded for the past four decades or so?

This is why socialist precepts must guide the policies implemented by our twin Armenian republics and why we must all support such development in our homeland.

avatar

Garen Yegparian

Asbarez Columnist
Garen Yegparian is a fat, bald guy who has too much to say and do for his own good. So, you know he loves mouthing off weekly about anything he damn well pleases to write about that he can remotely tie in to things Armenian. He's got a checkered past: principal of an Armenian school, project manager on a housing development, ANC-WR Executive Director, AYF Field worker (again on the left coast), Operations Director for a telecom startup, and a City of LA employee most recently (in three different departments so far). Plus, he's got delusions of breaking into electoral politics, meanwhile participating in other aspects of it and making sure to stay in trouble. His is a weekly column that appears originally in Asbarez, but has been republished to the Armenian Weekly for many years.
avatar

Latest posts by Garen Yegparian (see all)

1 Comment

  1. Garen, I’ve read a few of your articles and I’m starting to like you!
    I think the new less pejorative word for “nationalism” is “patriotism”. While the literal meaning is totally different, when used in geopolitical context it can mean the same selfless dedication to a nation’s good (oft times at the cost of one’s life), but without anyone ever associating anything negative to it. Unfortunately, an oligarch also believes he’s a patriot, but he often won’t let go of his personal fortunes (let alone his life) for the good of the nation…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*