«Բառերի ընտրությունը» - Հարցազրույց Միհրան Դաբաղի հետ

Armen Khechoyan's article is devoted to an interview with Professor Mihran Dabag, director of the Institute for Diaspora and Genocide Studies at the University of Bochum, which examines a complex of problems related to language, memory, and the politics of recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

Introduction and context of the conversation

The starting point of the conversation is a critical analysis of historian Taner Akçam's visit to Lebanon and his ceremonial reception at the Catholicosate of Cilicia. M. Dabag sees in such gestures a manifestation of a "defeatist consciousness" of the Armenian diaspora, inclined to grant foreign researchers the status of intermediaries and thereby assume the position of a petitioner.

Key thesis: attention to words

The central thesis of the interview is the necessity of terminological precision when discussing the Genocide. The professor criticizes Catholicos Aram's use of the concepts of "normalization," "reconciliation," and "mistake" in relation to Armenian-Turkish relations, pointing out that:

relations between victim and executioner can never become "normal";
the Genocide is not a war after which "reconciliation" is possible;
defining the Genocide as a "mistake" denies the systemic character of the destruction of Armenians as a foundation of the Turkish national project.

Thematic directions of the analysis

Several interconnected topics are then examined:

The deficit of philosophical and literary reflection on the Genocide, the reduction of the theme solely to the political demand for recognition;
The split within the Spyurk between "nationalists" and "dialogists," shaped, in M. Dabag's view, largely by Turkish discourse around the figure of Hrant Dink;
The geopolitical context in which the question of the Armenian Genocide is perceived by Western states as a "hindrance" to a new configuration of relations in the Caucasus and Middle East;
The thesis that the experience of the Genocide is not a "burden" but a "shield" for contemporary Armenia, granting the country a unique status in international attention;
Criticism of the insufficient scholarly study of the Genocide within Armenia itself and the absence of dialogue with European research discourse;
The problematization of the concept of a "genocide museum" as inadequate to the unfinished, ongoing character of the trauma;
The danger of the inflationary, "metonymic" use of the term "genocide" applied to various forms of collective violence, leading to the devaluation of the concept and the weakening of positions on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

Conclusion

The final conclusion of the interview is the necessity of a strict scholarly and conceptual differentiation of forms of political violence while preserving the uniqueness of the category of genocide within international legal and historical contexts. M. Dabag emphasizes that genuine understanding of the tragedy of 1915–1916 requires not only historical evidence but also profound philosophical, literary, and intellectual reflection, and that the preservation of the Armenian "NO" — a principled, unrenounced position — is regarded as a condition for preserving the collective memory and dignity of the nation.