"Hierarchy of Images" — A Conversation with Ruben Angaldyan

Karen Agekyan's article is devoted to a dialogue with philosopher and culturologist Ruben Angaldyan about the structure of Armenian national self-consciousness and how a hierarchy of significant images and figures forms in the mass consciousness of a people.

Introduction and Methodology

The material is constructed in the form of a conversation in which the interlocutors analyze the phenomenon of a "virtual gallery" of images — historical figures, cultural personalities, characters of mass culture — who personify for the people certain values and character traits. Starting from the question of whether there is a norm and deviations from it in this sphere, the authors move on to analyzing specific deformations of Armenian collective consciousness.

Key Thesis: Diminished Self-Esteem and External Legitimation

The central thesis of the conversation is the close connection between the historical experience of subordination to foreign powers and the contemporary hierarchy of national authorities. It is noted that:

• Armenian society was historically prepared to accept its own ruler only as a vassal of an external force, but did not conceive of a fully independent power as legitimate;
• the tradition of appealing to outside help (from the appeal to Byzantium before the Battle of Avarayr to contemporary practices) has entrenched the rhetoric of the "small nation" and the status of a victim-nation;
• the status of a figure who achieved success outside the Armenian world is traditionally valued higher than the status of a creator working within it.

The Phenomenon of "Borrowed Glory"

The interlocutors examine specific manifestations of this deformation:

• the cult of figures only formally or conditionally connected to Armenianness (Aznavour, Agassi, Cher, and others), alongside the undervaluation of figures who created within the national culture;
• state and media promotion of images of "success abroad" as compensation for a complex of national inferiority;
• the tendency of the ordinary Armenian to identify with stories of individual success of compatriots in foreign cultures, especially under conditions of diaspora.

Historical Dynamics: From the Second Republic to the Present Day

Particular attention is given to the destruction of the traditional pantheon of Armenian figures during the Soviet period, when figures of the national liberation movement found themselves under ideological ban, which aggravated the subsequent chaos in the system of value orientations.

Conclusion

The key conclusion of the conversation is the necessity of building one's own, autonomous hierarchy of priorities, in which creators who worked within the people and for the people would occupy the top positions, while the recognition of successful compatriots in other cultures would not replace but complement the national system of values. Openness to the world and the borrowing of others' experience do not contradict such an approach — provincialism, in the interlocutors' view, is generated not by insularity but precisely by dependence on foreign criteria of evaluation and the absence of one's own mature system of legitimation.