«Խոսակցություն տարբեր լեզուներով» - Հարցազրույց Արա ԲԱԼԻՈԶՅԱՆԻ հետ

The article by Karen Aghekyan and Rachya Arzumanyan is devoted to an interview with the diaspora Armenian writer Ara Baliozian, in the course of which the nature of dissidence, the mechanisms behind the formation of national historical memory, and the crisis phenomena in the life of Armenian society — both in the diaspora and in the historical homeland — are discussed. The piece is constructed as a dialogue-polemic: the authors consistently challenge the interlocutor's theses, which turns the interview into an extended discussion about the limits of what is permissible in the critical rethinking of national history.

Introduction and Methodology
The authors note the specificity of the genre: the interview was conceived from the outset not as a mere recording of a position but as a clash of viewpoints, in which the interviewers' objections do not always find a response from their interlocutor. Fragments of Baliozian's own notes are organically woven into the text, illustrating his worldview.

Dissidence as a Universal Category
Baliozian insists that authentic literature is by its very nature dissident, since it stands in opposition to power as the bearer of lies and propaganda. To this tradition he assigns virtually the entire corpus of Armenian letters — from Khorenatsi to Zarian and Charents. The authors point to the problematic nature of such an expansive definition: unlike a dissident who opposes an all-powerful imperial system, an Armenian critic addresses a divided and weakened society, which changes the very ethical configuration of the statement.

Key Proposition: The Concept of the "White Genocide"
Baliozian's central thesis is the contrasting of two versions of the tragedy of 1915:
• the traditional narrative of the genocide as an unforeseeable catastrophe, analogous to a natural disaster;
• an alternative interpretation according to which the catastrophe was the result of the nation's own historical decisions — fragmentation, capitulation, and a naïve faith in Western support.

Alongside this, Baliozian introduces the notion of a "White Genocide" — assimilation and exodus from the homeland — considering the excessive attention paid to events of a century ago to be a tool of manipulation employed by diaspora leaders.

Critique of Power and Diaspora Structures
The subject of the interview extends the metaphor of the "dragon" to any form of undemocratic control — from diaspora party bosses to oligarchic structures in Armenia — accusing them of lacking mechanisms for dialogue and consensus.

Objections of the Interviewers
Aghekyan and Arzumanyan consistently point to the vulnerabilities in their interlocutor's position:
• denouncing "half-truths" in relation to a tragedy of enormous scale risks turning into a heartless, "entomological" approach to the living pain of the victims;
• selective quoting of classic authors (Zarian in particular) can distort the integrity of their legacy;
• transferring the Soviet and post-Soviet experience of dissidence onto the Armenian diaspora fails to account for the fundamental difference between the objects of criticism — a totalitarian empire versus a weakened people.

Conclusion
The article's final conclusion is that the interview demonstrates not so much agreement between the parties as a fundamental incompatibility between two models for understanding national history: one oriented toward the radical demythologization of the past in the name of "objective truth," and the other insisting on the necessity of taking into account the ethical dimension of historical memory and its role in preserving collective identity.