The Armenian Genocide and its Effects on Ethnic Identity
The Armenian Genocide and its Effects on Ethnic Identity
Denis Joseph Caron II
University of California, Santa Cruz
The Armenian Genocide and its Effects on Ethnic Identity
In a study of ethnic identity, the psychological relationship of ethnic and racial minority groups plays a very important role in establishing one’s identity, yet it is such a small focus in the realm of psychology and other academic arenas (Phinney J, 1990). Furthermore, current research on ethnic identity development primarily focuses only on specific groups of American sub-cultures, such as African- and Latino-Americans. However, when compared to other ethnic groups, these two are of a much larger population with a variety of cultural backgrounds. To fully understand the development of ethnic identity, it is beneficial to focus on a smaller minority that has less variation in its identity. A particularly interesting ethnic minority in the United States is that of the Armenian Americans, who have quite a different historical background in comparison to other groups by which their ethnic identity is heavily based and symbolized on. Because of their unique history and reasoning for being heavily dispersed around the world, this group faces different challenges when an individual goes through the developmental stage of their identity. Looking towards the history of the Armenian people is the key to understanding the identity of these people, which to varying degrees directly influence the way they choose to live in and perceive American culture and their own culture.
Identity development is something that everyone has to deal with, at one point or another in one’s lives. In Eric Erikson’s (1968) work, Identity: Youth and Crisis, he stated that the search for one’s identity is crucial for an individual to develop a healthy identity. Being able to explore conflicts through different stages of identity crisis in their lives allows individuals to resolve feelings and develop an identity they are comfortable with. Identity, over time, has eventually evolved by combining Erikson’s theories with various empirical research data. Deux and Perkins’ kaleidoscopic self (2001), a more holistic approach to the development of identity, takes individual, relational, and collective identity each into account as an intertwining creation of identity. This now, is where ethnicity plays a very important role as to who someone may become. Individuals in general develop perceptions about structural relationships by being a member of a group (Branscombe 1998). This sort of ethnic identity, otherwise known as collective identity, is exactly what the Armenian culture seems to have.
The Importance of Ethnic Identity:
Collective ethnic identity deals with a specific type of group membership that people, for the most part, are thrust into at birth. What it means to be ethnic varies between different groups but researchers have found some basic definition to use as guidelines in their studies. First is that part of an individual’s self-concept, which is derived from their knowledge of their membership to a social group or groups. Attached to this membership there is often a sense of value and emotional significance. Also there may be an emphasized feeling of belonging and commitment, shared values and attitudes, or attitudes towards one group. Finally there are aspects of ethnic identity such as language, behavioral values, and knowledge of ethnic group history (Phinney J, 1990) that play an important role in identity as well.
Armenians have a very specific historical event that greatly changed the way that they were to perceive the world and furthermore themselves. This event is known today as the Armenian genocide. The strain that caused on their identity that surrounded this time still lingers today, and is apparent in most research done on their development. Membership of their ethnicity, especially in America, is greatly defined through the crimes committed against them a little less than a century ago and because of it, they were forced to relocate their families to merely survive.
A Brief History:
The Armenian struggle goes back to the 1800’s, during the times of the Ottoman Empire in present-day Turkey and Armenia. At the time, the Ottoman Empire was primarily that of a Islamic state, with the exceptions of the people in what was known as the Balkans on the west (Greece, Bulgaria, etc.) and the Armenians on the east side of the Empire. As the Balkans collected over time to form their independent country, the Ottoman Empire started to lose control of what used to be theirs. In time the Armenian people found that their relatively small numbers made them the only Christian minority left in the Empire and soon a nuisance to Sultan Abdülhamid II, and the Young Turks that followed his rule. To the Ottomans, this small group was no more than a group of “tolerated infidels” for the most part, and let them be providing that they did not get the same advantages as the Muslim people did. A quasi-legal contract, the Akdi Zimmet, was even put in place as a “safe-guard” for non-Muslims’ civil and religious rights, conditionally, in exchange for the payment of poll and land taxes (Dadrian, 2003). This of course could not last - history has proven time and time again that the oppressed only remain this way for so long, until the pressures of their counter existence to a greater majority becomes too overwhelming and they inevitably revolt. As this was a direct attack on the Armenians as a group, a great sense of pride in their culture began to build; they were not going to let themselves be pushed aside because of their beliefs.
In the remaining years that led up to and continued under the guise of World War I, the Turkish government underwent extremely precise and conceived plans to rid themselves of the Armenians. Sultan Abdülhamid II was the first to attempt this by brutally forcing an end to the Armenian protest in the early 1890’s; tens of thousands of Armenians were massacred across the Empire (Courtois, 2004). The Young Turks followed this in 1914, a group that felt Abdülhamid II had failed at his attempts to rid the Empire of the Armenians. Their attempts are what is now known to most of the world today as the Armenian Genocide. Mass recruitments of all Armenian men into the war, whether young or old, began as World War I went on its way. Disguised as necessary deportations of the people who were not safe in the empire, due to their non-Muslim beliefs, the government then moved families out of their homes and away from their lands. Men, woman and children all became “casualties of war,” as they marched straight to their deaths, in route to their new destinations (Dadrian, 2003). The total number of deaths that occurred during this time is approximately one million (Winters, 2003). The tragic history of the Armenian culture to this day is still a heavily drawn part of what defines who the Armenian people identify them selves as.
The Armenian Identity:
This preceding action of protest still lives on through the lives of the Armenians as they continue to fight to have the genocide recognized in Turkey and several other counties, including America. As part of an ever-changing world that does not completely want to acknowledge what happened to them, this plays an important role in how their identity is reflected with in our society (Abrahamian, 2006). Because of what happened to their culture back in their homeland, the Armenians started to disperse around the world. In America prior to World War II, Armenians as a demographic were quite small in number. By the mid-1890’s there were about 10,000 Armenians in the United States, most of them arriving in the times following Sultan Abdülhamid II massacres. Just before the First World War and the start of the genocide, there were 66,000 and after it came to an end 145,000 Armenians came. (Balakian P, 2003) Now, finding themselves in a new environment with totally new values and ethics, the Armenians were able to flourish and develop a new sense of pride in their culture.
In the years that followed their late arrival to the United States, a dramatic shift between a traditional to symbolic identity, which will be defined momentarily, began to happen (Bakalian A., 1992). The Armenian people were able to thrive in American culture and found it very easy to assimilate because of where they stood in our culture. In a study of Armenians in Washington, D.C., the researchers found that the first to come to America were entrepreneurs and later a younger generation of professionals came from them (O'Grady 1981). This means that unlike other ethnic minorities, their existence in America was not a function of lower socio-economic class (Glazer et al., 1963), they were actually able to utilize their position to their advantage. In a study by Hogg, Abrams and Patel (1987) they found that individuals in ethnic minorities, who have a low esteem in relation to a dominant group may have a resulting low self regard. Armenians, unlike African and Latino communities, general do not have that problem in our culture. This unfortunately, at times is at a cost of their own cultural beliefs because to keep up with American society, sacrifices are often made.
Traditional identity is that of which an individual is born into and defines themselves based off of this because their family tells them they should. In some aspects, that is very similar to what Marcia defined as foreclosure, a stage of identity formation, which refers to the ‘unquestioned adoption’ of parental plans and values (Marcia 2002). Marcia’s definition leaves out other important traditional identifications that are especially important in ethnic identity, such as Armenian family names (last names that end with -yan and -ian) and their own unique language. Not everyone questions what their family expects them to do, but when pressured to move along in a counter culture, other than that of one’s own ethnic background, it is very plausible for questioning to begin. During adolescence, when an individual starts to understand what it means to be Armenian, especially an Armenian American, a sense of symbolic identity begins. Symbolic identity is related to the want to fulfill a socio-psychological function other then just being born Armenian. While living in America, these individuals find that it is important to not lose their ethnic identity, so as a way to with hold it, they begin to readapt aspects of their culture that are particular important to their ethnicity. Particularly three main categories: nation, church and family.
What is interesting about the way Armenians view nation, church and family is that it is impossible to define these symbols independently; each exists in the context of the other (O'Grady 1981). It seems that most Armenian- Americans define themselves as members of a collective unity of these three, rather than as individuals. Furthermore, because of this idealism, Armenians have developed a way to differentiate themselves from others in the broader part of American society. According to O’Grady’s study a more specific example of this is the use of two terms used and understood by all Armenians: Hye and odars. Hye, which stresses exclusivity of these three important symbols, is what all Armenians are from the moment they are born. On the flip side odars, are the people who do not fit in these categories (foreigners or non-Armenians). For instance, a European American, with no Armenian birthrights would automatically be considered an odar, even if they got married to an Armenian, they will never be Hye. This exclusivity not only separates them from the rest of America but also creates a greater sense of that unity and their collective identity.
During exploration evidence of the Armenian past become prevalent. Being raised as a family oriented unit with Christian principles, it is inevitable for the need to understand the history of their nationality at some point of development. Recognizing what had happened to their people can be a painful experience and serve as severe mark on their pride, as well as their identity. Even though this was nearly a century ago and the Armenians of America no longer have direct pains from the genocide, they still have to deal with the denial. The denial of genocide is not simply a problem because it presents an erroneous history for people of the future to learn about or because it covers up of a tragedy (Havannisian, 2003). What is inherent in the denial of genocide is the humiliation of never gaining the memorial needs of the survivors and the generations that follow those survivors; it is as if it is an attack on the collective identity of all the people who suffer from the genocide.
As an individual grows up in an Armenian community or family, these aspects come together over time. Not all of them are spoken, some of them are just assumed by other members of the group that because they are surrounded by family, church and nationality constantly that the child will pick it up; they a will always be Hye. Though American culture has shifted the views of some individuals to symbolic rather then traditional identity, overall at least a one or two of these three symbols Armenians define themselves off of are prevalent. The sense of nationality seems to be the strongest and most apparent of the three. This is the one that is the most verbal enforced through family lines. Almost all of the current families in America have had some type of relationship to the genocide; whether it be a family member who died, or the simple fact that they ended up in America because of it. The genocide is an undeniable part of Armenian identity and it is through this strongly rooted heritage that Armenians have maintained their ethnic identities in a country that is a cultural melting pot.
References
Abrahamian, L. (2006) Armenian Identity in a Changing World. Costa Mesa, Ca: Mazda Publishers.
Bakalian A. (1992) Armenian Americans: From Being to Feeling Armenian. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Balakian, P. (2003) The burning tigris: The Armenian genocide and America's response. New York: Perennial. pp. 144-159
Branscombe N, (1998) Thinking about one’s gender group’s privileges or disadvantages: Consequences for well-being in women and men. Published Journal of Social Psychology 37, 167-184
Dadrian V. N., (2003) The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic conflicts from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus. Sixth, Revised edition. Berghahn Books New York Oxford. Pp. 4-6 pp 220-210
Erikson E.H., (1968) Identity, youth and crisis, Norton and company inc, New York. Pp15-42
Glazer, N., Moynihan, D., (1963) Beyond the melting pot. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press.
Havannisian R.G., (2003) Looking backward, moving forward. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey pp. 231-239
Marcia J. E., (2002) Adolescence, identity, and the Bernardone family. Identity: an international journal of theory and Research, 1(3), 199-209.
O'grady I. P. (1981) Shared Meaning and Choice As Components of Armenian Immigrant Adaptation. Anthropological Quarterly Vol. 54, No. 2 Apr 1981 pp. 76-81
Perkins, A. T., Deaux K. (2001). Kaleidoscopic self. Individual self, relational self, collective self. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Phinney J. (1990) Ethnic Identity in Adolescence and Adults: Review of Research, Psychological Bulletin Vol.108, No 3, 499-514.
Sebastien de Courtois, The forgotten genocide: The eastern Christians, the last Armenians (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2004), pp. 106-110
Winters j., (2003) America and the Armenian genocide of 1915. Cambridge university press. Pp1-6