Author: Gevorg Poghosyan, Fellow of the Academy
DOI: 10.9734/bpi/rraass/v5/2986G
ABSTRACT
The paper represents the issues of the origin and evolution of social thought and sociological researches in Armenia. The process of the emergence of social and sociological thoughts in Armenia considered from the early Middle Ages to the beginning of the 20th century. Since the ancient period Armenian philosophers in their works addressed the problems of man and his environment, social relations and the role of the state. In scholarly publication it is customary to draw a distinction between sociological ideas, conceptual frameworks and theories, on the one hand, and applied social studies, on the other hand.
Keywords: Sociological ideas; Armenian philosophers; cultural development; philosophical treatises.
In Armenia, applied sociological studies started to be undertaken since the second half of the 20th century [1]. As regards social-philosophical thought, social-political, legal and religious ideas and frameworks, they have a long history in Armenia and date back to early Middle Ages [2]. Many social ideas expressed in the works of medieval Armenian thinkers are relevant even in our time. The chapter also addresses scientific research areas of applied sociological surveys, the institutional development of sociology and sociological education in Armenia since the Soviet times to the modern state. There are also some stage of formation of sociological research work and sociological education from the early 1980 until our time. Showing current status and trends in the development of sociology and sociological research in the Republic of Armenia.
Quite a few historians, philosophers, religious and public figures of medieval Armenia addressed acute social and political problems of the time in their writings. Among them was outstanding Armenian thinker Eznik of Kolb (c. 380450), a disciple of the founder of the Armenian alphabet Mesrop Mashtots (c.362440). Eznik of Kolb produced many philosophical treatises, in which he formulated the basic principles of the ideological and political struggle of the nation. Eznik of Kolb proceeded from the Christian doctrine with its system of values and used it as a perspective to discuss issues of individual and collective freedom. The Eznik of Kolb’s political conceptual framework was grounded in concepts of free will and its “autonomy” and of individual’s freedom of choice. He was an ideologist of the national-liberation struggle and one of the authors of the then famous missive “The answer to Persians” [4]. The missive was addressed to the Shah of Persia on behalf of religious and secular leaders of Armenia. In it they criticized strongly the policy of assimilation pursued by Sasanian Iran, put forward the demand for freedom of conscience and religion and supported the idea of the right of all peoples inhabiting Persia to unique identity and independence as well as to freedom to choose ways of their political and cultural development.
A few years earlier, the well-known Armenian Catholicos and the prominent clergyman and politician St. Nerses the Great (329 - 373) launched a wide range of activities in the social sphere. On his orders, poorhouses were built in all regions of Great Armenia. The poorhouses admitted the sick, the crippled and the poor and provided proper care and food to them [5].
Political, legal, socio-philosophical, moral and psychological justification of the liberation struggle of the Armenian people was at the core of the political doctrine of another prominent Armenian historian and thinker Yeghishe (Elishe) (410 - 475). Yeghishe’s political views are expounded primarily in his famous book “History of Vardan and the Armenian War”. Issues of social relations and institutions, the nature of power, domination and submission are dealt with also in other works of the thinker [6].
The founder of the Armenian historiography, eminent historian, author of the famous “History of Armenia” Movses Khorenatsi (Moses of Chorene) (c. 410 - 490) attached particular importance to coverage of the history of social and political thought. In line with the Aristotelian tradition, Khorenatsi regarded the emergence of the State as a result of the natural expansion of the family. He believed that State is a qualitatively new level in regulation of social and political relations, while the written law makes society more stable. On the other hand, for the normal functioning of the society and the preservation of order it is essential that every person, regardless of his social standing, should properly perform the role ascribed to him [7]. Already at that time Khorenatsi considered the issue of the relationship between towns and villages as very important and believed that towns had a higher status than villages. While assessing the social significance of wealth from the rationalist perspective, he nevertheless emphasized its contradictory nature.
Following Plato and Aristotle, eminent Armenian medieval philosopher David Anhaght (David the Invincible) (5th-6th centuries; believed to be born in the mid-70’s of the 5th century) divided philosophy into theoretical and practical [6]. At the same time, he regarded regulation and improvement of social and political relations, social community and individual morality as the ultimate goal of practical philosophy.
Recognizing legitimacy and fairness of the existing social order and social stratification, the Armenian philosopher, educator, poet, outstanding scientist, political thinker and founder of Haghpat and Ani universities Hovhannes Sarkavag Imastaser (“Imastaser” means “he who loves wisdom”) (c. 1045 - 1129) demanded that the ruling class abide rigorously by the existing laws, norms and traditions. He pointed out that most rulers care only about personal fame and enrichment but not about people, without realizing evanescence of wealth, fame and power. Describing the process of formation of new social strata, in particular, the “masters” (“parons”) and other business people, Sarkavag noted that their enrichment is based on deception and on trampling human rights and dignity and is, thus, contrary to the human essence and is inhuman. That, in his opinion, led to the situation, when in towns goodness and justice are despised, while lies and evil deeds are extolled. Lawlessness brings about moral decline, degradation of personality and the spread of social evils. Moreover, in real life the criminal and immoral people achieve more than law-abiding and honest citizens. Sarkavag described utter powerlessness and exploitation of the lower social classes by, particularly, urban nouveau riche. With a view to overcoming social contradictions and strengthening social cohesion he believed that rulers and officials should reduce their appetites and arbitrariness and should respect the rights of ordinary citizens, granted to them by existing laws. This is a necessary condition for consolidation of society and regulation of social relations. At the same time Sarkavag warned that “weak” and helpless lower social classes can, if they unite, become a powerful force capable to defeat powers that be. Sarkavag dealt with the issues of social conflicts (between individual and society, man and nature, and between social strata) and of legal and property inequality in his philosophical poem “The Word of Wisdom.” According to Sarkavag, human actions cannot be predetermined; they are not subordinated to a blind necessity because when they take any action, human beings are guided by reason and free will [5]. In other words, human beings are entirely responsible for all their actions. Back then he viewed family with all its internal complex relationships as an integral unit and the basis of the society.
The eminent legal scholar and author of the famous “Armenian Code of Law”
Mkhitar Gosh (c. 1120 - 1213), enjoyed great prestige and respect among both scholars and politicians and Statesmen of his time. He was a confessor of and an adviser to Zakareh Zakarian, the Supreme Commander of the Georgian principality, who was better known under the name “Dolgorukiy.” Mkhitar Gosh was one of the first to explain the problem of human non-freedom by socioeconomic reasons. He explained social stratification as well as legal and wealth inequality existing in the society by the “dependence, which has arisen because of the need in land and water because the Creator created human being free.” Therefore, the divine laws and the laws made by humans operate equally in the society. He believed that all the people in the revived Armenian State should be equal before the law regardless of their ethnicity and religion. Each social group is endowed with rights and obligations by law, the implementation of which promotes justice. This is a necessary condition for achieving the “common good”, which is above the class or individual good because “there is nothing more elevated than the public good.” On the one hand, he called on the lower classes to obey masters and, on the other hand, he demanded that masters take care of their subjects and to ground relations with them in the law. From that perspective he attached considerable significance to the solution of social problems seeking to get social contradictions mitigated through various measures and to harmonize and streamline the interests of different social strata. Gosh believed that in the revived Armenian State the law of force must give way to the force of law [8].
An important component of the teachings of the great Armenian philosopher and social activist Hovhannes Erznkatsi Blouz (John of Erznka) (1225-1293) was the idea of improving social relations and achieving social cohesion. Following his predecessor Mkhitar Gosh, Erznkatsi considered private property as the underlying cause of social inequality. Social and political hierarchy is the basis for the existence of society. The structure of the society reflects the structure of the “Kingdom of Heaven”, thereby ensuring the natural, i.e. legitimate nature of political, legal, social and other relations. Dividing society into several social strata, he classified them in terms of their relationship to power. According to Erznkatsi, human dignity is not directly related to social origin. In real societal life, as a result of prevalence of injustice and lawlessness the individuals who are wise and worthy of honors often suffer and are treated with slight by the society at large, whereas “malicious and unrighteous people inherit glory, honors and power" [7]. Erznkatsi likened public life to a raging sea, where not everyone finds his place. Therefore, individuals, especially from lower social strata, should unite into brotherhood and association and to become collective force in order to counter social evils.
In 14th - 15th centuries, social ideas were developed in Armenian religious universities in Gladzor and Tatev. It was in those universities that outstanding thinkers of that period Hovnan Vorotnetsi and Grigor Tatevatsi (Gregory of Tatev) perfected their knowledge and skills and focused on the most important social and political issues of that time.
Gregory of Tatev (1346-1409), the great philosopher and thinker, chancellor of the University of Tatev, left a rich written heritage. Gregory of Tatev proceeded from the Aristotelian idea that man is a social animal and does not exist outside the society. Human activities are determined by social relations, in and due to which an individual manifest himself as a human being, who is thus different from animals. Gregory of Tatev viewed the issues of the structure of society in light of the organic theory and likened society to the human body, where each organ performs a specific function and is connected with other organs. On the bottom rung of the hierarchic social ladder are commoners, on the second rung are the “azat” (freemen), on the third are princes and on the fourth are kings. Functional unity and harmony among social strata are often disturbed by the spread of heresies, by greed of princes and by excessive requisitions imposed on commoners giving rise to numerous social movements, national disasters, dissatisfaction, and causing mass outmigration. Gregory of Tatev regarded the church as a social force whose mission is to protect society for the purpose of social cohesion against the excesses of mass disturbances, willful disobedience, delinquent acts and abuse of power. He believed that one of the main tasks of the church is smoothing of social contradictions. According to Gregory of Tatev, all social, political, legal and other relations, including inequality, injustice, delinquent acts, etc. are grounded only in free will of humans. These phenomena are not natural; they do not occur according to nature. Otherwise, it would mean that the person does not bear any responsibility for his actions and deeds. If that indeed were the case, humans would be deprived of social activism and of the opportunity to overcome evil in public life. He proposed to build on what brings people together rather than on what drives them apart. In his view, the main task in inter-ethnic relations is to establish peace and cooperation. The issues related to the majority of people should be resolved with the participation of that majority. The ruler’s power is strengthened and the country prospers in case of fair and lawful rule. Otherwise, his power is weakened and social revolts emerge bringing the country to the brink of destruction. In the opinion of Gregory of Tatev, the State power was lost, the country was devastated and people were leaving the country and dispersing among other peoples as a result of a despotic rule of religious and secular leaders and princes, who did not confer with advisers [7].
Cilician Armenia (in the territory of present-day Turkey), which existed in the 11th - 14th centuries, was notable, inter alia, for the works of Nerses Shnorhali (Nerses the Graceful, c. 1100-1173). Shnorhali consistently advocated the principle of free will and sought to put religion into the service of the public interest, to use it for the prevention of vices and social evils.
The theoretical principles and ideas expounded by Shnorhali were subsequently developed by Nerses Lambronatsi (Nerses of Lambron, 1153-1198). He descended from a famous princely family and was a prominent socio-political and religious figure in Cilician Armenia. He sharply criticized and condemned the inter-ethnic strife and the fomenting of hatred between peoples, and spoke against setting off peoples against one another on the basis of religious differences [9].
From the XVII century on, there was a visible revival of interest in various phenomena of societal life. The issues concerning the nature of societal laws, the government, the present and future of the Armenian people and the ways of liberation of the nation from foreign oppression were raised and discussed. Thinkers and public figures of the time put forward the ideas of revolutionary transformation of the society.
Hovhannes Dzhugaetsi, for example, defended the idea of harmonization of interests of different sectors of the society, while Ghukas Vanandetsi, his contemporary, was a staunch supporter of restricting lawlessness and arbitrariness of feudal lords through the use of force by workers. It is obvious that Ghukas Vanandetsi’s views had been affected positively by the ideas of progressive English thinkers of the time.
The so-called “Madras group” in India played a prominent role in shaping the national liberation ideology. Members of that Armenian group Hovsep (Joseph) Emin, Shahamir Shahamirian and Movses Bagramian were first representatives of the enlightenment and progressive social and political thought. They openly criticized and rejected the imperial order, opposed slavery, raised the issue of equality and freedom of the individual and strove for the implementation of social and political reforms. In their view, education, dissemination of ideas of equality, freedom, natural human rights as well as elimination of illiteracy and ignorance would make a significant contribution to the growth of the liberation movement.
They put forth a demand that a republican democratic order should be established in Armenia after her liberation from the foreign oppression with the help of Christian Russia. Written by Shahamirian and published in Armenian in Madras in 1788 the “Snare of Glory” was in fact the first draft of the constitution for independent Armenia [8].
The Armenian philosophical thought in the XIX century bore the imprint and marked influence of the European bourgeois-revolutionary ideology as well as of the ideas of Russian revolutionary democracy. It was at that time that many works of leading European and Russian thinkers that were particularly in tune with the Armenian national objectives were translated into Armenian. Independent studies that reflected the specific atmosphere of national life and had qualities necessary for contributing to the progress of Armenian society were also published.
The Enlightenment thinkers made consistent efforts to emancipate schools and education from the church’s influence. They believed that instruction to people should be provided in a simple and accessible language. Emancipation from religious fetters and enhancement of civic mentality required that control over public education should be taken from the clergy. Such Armenian thinkers of the time as Khachatur Abovian, Mikael Nalbandian, Gabriel Patkanian and others addressed those issues in their publications. Development of progressive ideology of enlightenment marked a transition from romantic notions of social and moral mission of science and education to the bourgeois ideas of love of freedom and then to ideas of revolutionary democracy. The Enlightenment initiated the spread of scientific knowledge in Armenian society [9].
At the end of the 19th century social thought was evolving in the context of erosion of patriarchal attitudes and the formation of the new, capitalist social and economic relations as well as of growing national unity. Since the 1880s the ideas of Marxism started entering the Armenian reality. The spread of Marxism was gaining momentum as class conflicts were getting worse. Propaganda of Marxist-Leninist ideas marked a radical turn in the history of the Armenian social thought. The works were published that used a new perspective in dealing with societal evolution and subjected the history of the Armenian socio-political thought to Marxist analysis.
Chairs of philosophy were established in institutions of higher education in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1944, the Sector of Philosophy was established in the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR. In 1969, the Sector was reorganized into the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the, Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR. Here studies were conducted of main contradictions in societal development as well as ways of the ways to identify and overcome them. Also studied were the dialectic of the relations of production, the issues of philosophy of labor and technology, of social progress of socialist humanism, of the formation of nations and ethnic relations, of war and peace, of theory of culture, etc.
In the 1970s-1980s the studies conducted in the Institute focused on issues of correlation between ideology and politics and between the social and the psychological in the society, of science-based management of the society and of the Marxist interpretation of humanism. Also studied were social issues of the education system [10] as well as of labor, technology and scientific and technological revolution [11]. Research was conducted of methodological and social issues of the socialist way of life [12] and basic concepts of sociology were reviewed in detail [13].
Applied sociological studies were undertaken since the 1970s. They were devoted to the sociological study of the socialist way of life, issues of labor and of staff members of enterprises, migration from the Republic’s rural to urban areas, and issues of family and youth. Alongside those studies publications were produced on methodologies and techniques of applied sociological research [14,15,16,17,18]. At the same time sociological groups were set up 122 in industrial enterprises and associations, Ministries and research institutions of the Republic.
Sociological research began to be undertaken in the Institute of Philosophy and Law and in the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Armenian National Academy of Sciences. Later on, in 1997, the Chair of Sociology was established at the Philosophy Department of Yerevan State University and L. Harutiunian was appointed as its first head. In 1983, the Armenian branch of the Soviet Sociological Association was founded and Professor L. Karapetian was elected its Chairperson. Russian colleagues from leading sociological centers in Moscow and Leningrad played an important role in the emergence and evolution of Armenian sociology in those years. Not only did they help in training qualified personnel of sociologists in Russian institutions, but they were also actively involved in the most important scholarly events and undertakings of Armenian sociologists.
A serious breakthrough in the development of Armenian sociology occurred from mid-1980s to end of XX century. The emergence of the independent Armenian state, emancipation from heavily ideological Communist party regime gave impetus to a new stage in the development of social, philosophical and humanities thought on the whole. Discarded were ideological clichés of MarxistLeninist philosophy within the constraints of which sociology remained as questionable science. In that politicized reality, sociology could be endowed with the right to be regarded only as applied science dealing with empirical research. Theoretical sociology was treated with caution because back in the Stalinist times it had been banned among other “bourgeois pseudo-sciences.”
Liberalization of the society in early 1990s, abolition of one-party system and transition to free-market economy was played a crucial role in reinterpretation of social sciences in general. In the period of momentous changes, the role of philosophy and social sciences grew considerably. The society felt the need in scholarly interpretation and analysis of the new realities that had radically changed lives of ordinary people. The transition period in Armenia clearly affected the development of the Armenian sociology. That was the path of gains and losses at the same time.
In 1992, on the initiative of G. Poghosyan, the Center for Sociological Research was established in the Armenian Academy of Sciences, which had a status of a fully-fledged research institution, which also provided Ph.D. studies. Subsequently, in 1995, the Center became a constituent part of the Institute of Philosophy and Law, which in 2003 was renamed as the Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law of the RoA National Academy of Sciences (Director G. Poghosyan). The main areas of sociological research conducted in the Institute included sociology of disasters, and population’s social situation and migration [19,20,21,22,23,24]. Later on the sociologists from the NAS Institute started studying the phenomena of social and political alienation of people [25], the status of the individual in a changing Armenian society [26,27] as well as social issues of mutual perceptions in Armenian-Turkish relations [28]. In recent years, a lot of attention has been paid to the study of the issues of modernization and social transformation of the Armenian society [29,30,31,32].
Armenian Sociological Association (ASA) under the chairmanship of G. Poghosyan in 1992 was founded as an independent non-governmental organization, which was among the first postsoviet association admitted to the International Sociological Association, with a national member status. Armenian Sociological Association brought together about 50 individual members and gave an unprecedented opportunity to ethnic Armenian sociologists from abroad to become its members. Such eminent and well-known American sociologists as Professor Edward Tiryakian, Dr. Levon Chorbajian, Ani Kalayjian, Berch Berberoglu, Ani Bakalian and some others were elected honorary members of the ASA Board. ASA has boosted Armenian sociologists’ international contacts.
At the same time small sociological organizations, including in news agencies, political parties, Ministries and private universities, began to appear. It is noteworthy that sociological groups have been set up not only in the capital but also in other cities and towns of the country. There has been a significant increase in sociology courses taught in universities due to the emergence of a large number of private higher education institutions. A growing public interest in sociology has a positive impact on its institutional development and consolidation. The process is still going on.
The areas of research and the scope of sociological topics have expanded dramatically. Sociologists started studying the problems that had until recently been considered as taboos. Liberalization, greater openness of the new Armenian society significantly expanded the scope of sociological analysis of societal life. At present, Armenian sociologists pursue studies in three main spheres:
• Fundamental, academic research;
• Public opinion survey, political sociology; • Marketing research, consumer behavior study;
• Applied sociology.
Marketing research and public opinion studies are entirely new. However, new, earlier non-existent study areas emerged even in the field of academic research. The following can be pointed out among the major new areas in academic sociological research:
• Sociology of disasters;
• Migration and refugees;
• Social transformations;
• Gender studies;
• Ethnosociology;
• Social stratification of society;
• Sociology of poverty;
• Sociology of family and youth;
• Sociology of education;
• Social and political alienation;
• Social work and health care, etc.
Academic studies are usually concluded with publication of books, scholarly articles and presentations made at several international conferences. Armenian sociologists participated in many World Congresses of Sociology (in New Delhi, Madrid, Bielefeld, Montreal, Seoul, Gothenburg and others) and in numerous international conferences.
During the last decade, sociological research in the field of studying migration flows in Armenia has become particularly widespread [33,34,35,36,37,38]. The current state of the Armenian Diaspora in Russia testifies to the presence in it of some divergent tendencies: on the one hand, this is the historically inherent desire of the Armenian Diaspora to thoroughly integrate into the social and economic life of Russia; and on the other hand, this is a certain orientations for repatriation to the homeland in the context of current western sanctions against Russia and a special military operation in Ukraine. In order to study the degree of integration of the Armenian Diaspora in to Russian society and identify a potential repatriation resource among the Armenian migrants, a comparative sociological survey was conducted in Russia and in Armenia. In the Russian Federation, the sociological survey among the Armenian migrants was conducted in the most Armenian-populated communities in Moscow, in Stavropol and Krasnodar regions. In Armenia the sociological survey among the migrant families was conducted in the several cities of the republic. The main results of comparative sociological surveys were published in the form of a predictive analysis of the current situation. [39,35,34]. Another direction of nowadays survey’s is the studying of social orientations and mood in Armenian society, in particular such phenomena as social and political alienation of the population [25,40]; as well as the research on values and political orientations among Armenian youth [41,42,43]; the growth of radical sentiments in Armenian society [44]. In the special focus of Armenian sociology is current state of the Armenian Diaspora in Russia. They testifies to the presence in it of some divergent tendencies: on the one hand, this is the historically inherent desire of the Armenian Diaspora to thoroughly integrate into the social and economic life of Russia; and on the other hand, this is a certain orientations for repatriation to the homeland in the context of current western sanctions against Russia and a special military operation in Ukraine. In order to study the degree of integration of the Armenian Diaspora in to Russian society and identify a potential repatriation resource among the Armenian migrants, a comparative sociological survey was conducted in Russia and in Armenia. In the Russian Federation, the sociological survey among the Armenian migrants was conducted in the most Armenianpopulated communities in Moscow, in Stavropol and Krasnodar regions. In Armenia the sociological survey among the migrant families was conducted in the several cities of the republic. The main results of comparative sociological surveys were published in the form of a predictive analysis of the current situation. [45,34,35,39]. There are the new sociological studies of social memory and national identity in the modern Armenian society. The current interest in social memory associated with the accelerating pace of development of civilization and also due to the expansion of the field of interdisciplinary research.
So-called “epoch of the discourse of historical memory” in the social sciences also manifests itself in the widespread use of Memory Studies in the sociological studies. Since social memory functioning within the historical process, researchers often put an equal sign between them. Despite some incompleteness, the social memory has an ability to retain in the collective consciousness the main historical narratives, which are so necessary for the construction of national identity. Conducted in Armenia during 2020-2023 sociological researches made it possible to reveal the features of the historical consciousness of the modern Armenian society, its depth and structure, as well as collective ideas about the time of the formation of the Armenian nation, its language and spiritual culture, about the key events of history, national heroes and kings, as well as about factual information, accumulated in the aggregate historical memory of the various social groups. [46,47,48,49,50]. The big nationwide representative sociological survey in 2022 was devoted to the study of the distinctive characteristics of the national identity of modern Armenian society. The dynamic image of the main characteristics of the national identity of modern Armenians was constructed based on a theoretical analysis of the obtained data with the comparative study of secondary data obtained in earlier sociological studies. Sociological analysis of the self-perception of Armenians in relation to other ethnic groups of a large historical region was surveyed. The outlines of social distance within the Armenian subethnic groups were considered in detail. Some of the sociological data obtained were compared to the results of recent genetic studies of the Armenian ethnos. [48]. Additionally, a special study of the sociocultural identity of modern Armenian society, traditional values and features of social life was done in 2021. The main attention was paid to assessing the presence in the Armenian national culture of elements from other national cultures, closeness and similarity with these nations, as well as personal perception of other cultures’ elements presence. Also, an analysis of collective idea about the overall life satisfaction and meanings of happy life was offered. [47].
Nowadays the big commercial companies in Armenia commission marketing sociological studies in the fields of advertising, consumer demand research, etc.
Public opinion research in Armenia gained particular momentum after the first presidential elections held in 1991. Armenian Sociological Association has been conducting public opinion polls on a more or less regular basis. In the past 25 years Armenian sociologists have conducted public opinion and exit polls during national elections in Armenia together with experts from Gallup Institute (USA) [51,52]. The results of sociological studies and surveys are published in newspapers, broadcast by television, posted on the Internet and are published as separate analytical reports, articles in scholarly journals, books and pamphlets. Over time, numerous private sociological centers and NGOs appeared in the republic, which regularly conducted research on society and public opinion on various aspects of social life. Among the most famous of them are the CRRC Center, founded by the McCarthur Foundation in three republics of the South Caucasus: Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, as well as the sociological centers of National Democratic Institute (USA), International Republican Institute (USA), BREAVIS, Armenian Marketing Association, International Gallup association, Orbeli-Analytical research center, CAEAS "FOCUS"- Free Alliance of Euro-Asian Sociologists and others.
In Armenia there was not a specialized journal in sociology and that obviously makes it difficult to publish sociological materials. On the other hand, it encourages researchers to publish articles abroad. But last two decades many new scientific journals publishing the sociological articles. Among thise periodical issues are:
✓ “HERALD of Social Science”. Armenian National Academy of Sciences.
✓ “Review of Armenian Studies”. Armenian National Academy of Sciences. ✓ “Journal of Sociology”. Bulletin of Yerevan State University
✓ “ALTERNATIVE”. Quarterly Academic Journal.
✓ “Philosophy in the Present-day World. Proceedings of the Conference held on the occasion of the UNESCO`s World Philosophy Day”. Yerevan, 2012 – 2023 and others.
In Soviet times, the training of professional cadres of Armenian sociologists was taking place mainly in Moscow, at the Institute for Sociological Studies, USSR Academy of Sciences. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, contacts with Russian sociological centers significantly weakened, particularly in terms of training young sociologists. Currently, professional training of qualified sociologists is undertaken in relevant university departments in Yerevan. In 2004, the Sociology Department was established on the basis of the chair of Sociology in the Department of Philosophy at Yerevan State University.
Three chairs in the Department provide education to students in sociology, social work, conflict resolution, methodology of social studies and public relations. Since 2007, there is distance learning in sociology and social work. The Department has the Laboratory for Applied Sociological Research. The teaching staff of the Department takes professional development courses on a regular basis in research and educational centers of various countries, particularly in the US, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, England, India, and Sweden as well as in reputable universities in the CIS countries. The Department has established strong professional contacts with and maintained international cooperation with a number of universities, including: the Humboldt University of Berlin, Social Sciences University of Münster, Ruhr University Bochum, University of Potsdam, George Mason University in the US, Swedish University of Uppsala and Saratov State University. Research at the Department is conducted in many areas, including in the field of theoretical sociology and research methodology [53,54,55,56], in the field of conflictology and conflict resolution [57] as well as of theory and practice of social work [58,59,60,61]. The Department of Sociology is a group member of the International Sociological Association. In June 2009, jointly with the Swedish colleagues the Department organized the 39th World Congress of the International Institute of Sociology (IIS) in Yerevan.
Future sociologists are also trained in Yerevan State Engineering University (the Sociology chair is headed by E. Kyureghian. In 2006, in Kh. Abovyan Armenian State Pedagogical University Professor Yury Gasparian established Department of Sociology and Social Work on the basis of Laboratory of Sociology in the Department of Educational Psychology and Sociology. The Department started actively training future sociologists and social workers at bachelor and master levels offering 89 academic courses. Annually, there are 200 undergraduate and 30 master’s degree level students. The Department Faculty consists of Doctors of Science-Professors, Ph.D. degree holders and several post-graduate students. Since 2006, the Department produced several scholarly and methodological publications, including 11 manuals and monographs [62,63]. The research in the Department is focused primarily on the study of social issues of the Armenian family and youth [64,65].
Sociological education in the country expanded also due to the establishment of private universities. The 2-3 of those universities offer educational programs in sociology at a bachelor and master’ degrees level. Opportunities to get professional sociological education in the US and European universities expanded considerably. The Soros Foundation’s Open Society Institute has been helpful in this respect by annually providing scholarships on a competitive basis for a full course of study at the European Central University (CEU) in Budapest. There are also other opportunities for getting higher education for those having good knowledge of English. Many young people avail themselves of the opportunities to study abroad that are given by various foundations through such programs as IREX, MASKIE, ACTR/ACCELS and Fulbright. Every year 7-8 students from Armenia go to study humanities, including sociology, abroad.
The main problem faced by sociological education in the country is, in our view, the lack of books and textbooks in Armenian and of qualified instructors. The language of instruction in universities is Armenian. However, there are few textbooks written by Armenian authors in Armenian and 2-3 textbook translated from Russian or English [66,67,68,69,70,62,55,56,63,61,17]. In the universities, students in sociology and political science departments get information primarily through lectures given by instructors. The works of the classics of sociology are available generally only in foreign languages. The lack of textbooks, manuals and primary sources in Armenian reduce significantly the quality of sociological education. Students receive bachelor and master’s degrees even though their knowledge of the history of sociology, of sociological research methodology and of contemporary sociological theories, schools and trends is insufficient.
Among possible solutions to this problem could be provision of sociological education by sending Armenian students to study sociology and political science abroad and opening foreign universities in Armenia, like American University of Armenia, France University, European University, Eurasian University, Russian-Armenian University, Moscow State University branch in Armenia and others.
It is not incidental that the past few years the “geography” of international professional contacts of Armenian sociologists has expanded dramatically. Armenian sociologists have intensified professional contacts with foreign university and research centers. Effective long-term contacts with some of those have been maintained for a number of years already. It would take up a lot of space to list international projects, bilateral and multilateral professional contacts and participation of Armenian sociologists in international and European projects.
The ACA played a major role in strengthening those contacts. Particularly noteworthy are the activities and efforts undertaken by ASA in 1997- 2023 to establish the South Caucasus NGO Network that brought together a number of non-governmental organizations dealing with issues of migration and refugees from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh and South Ossetia. Due to ASA’s constant efforts, meetings of those NGOs from the region became regular. A computer-based network for those NGOs was set up and operated and TCMS news South Caucasus Newsletter was published in Armenia in English and Russian. ASA was implementing that long-term project with financial support from the Norwegian Refugee Council. Many other projects and sociological studies have been conducted in Armenia with support from such international organizations as UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR, IOM, NRC, Save the Children, USAID, Eurasia Foundation, OSI, NDI, IRI Gallup Institute etc. The general commercialization of science affected also to the sociology. The general trend of commercialization of science could not but affect the status of sociology. The number and the total budget of the fundamental sociological research have dwindled. At the same time, the funding for marketing research, various commercial and political surveys, focus groups, telephone interviews, on-lane surveys etc. has been on the rise. For this reason, in Armenia, as in other CIS countries, there has been an outflow of sociologists from academic institutions into commercial enterprises. Fundamental research suffers from that, of course, even though there is a particularly acute need of it in transition societies. There are a large number of social problems in the Armenian reality that require sociological analysis, scholarly understanding, analyzing and interpretation.
Within the framework of this chapter, we have tried to give a brief historical description of the processes of development of social thought and sociological research in Armenia. Of course, in this work we would not even dare to cover the entire two-thousand-year heritage of Armenian philosophical and socio-political thought in all its huge scope and with reference to the works of all Armenian thinkers throughout the long history of Armenia. But despite the brevity, it seems to us that we tried to give our readers an idea of those main and key social concepts that worried Armenian thinkers from the early Medieval to the present day. And also, to show the connection of times and how these historical ideas and concepts shaped and further directed the formation and development of scientific sociology in Armenia. In other words, this process of the development of social thought can be represented on the model of the tree of knowledge: the deep philosophical and ideological roots of this tree through the strong and slender trunk of modern scientific methodology made it possible to spread out the wide branched crown of the tree. That crown on which from time to time, among the many leaves, the serious fruits of scientific sociological researches ripen.
Anyway, it is necessary to expand the practice of strengthening professional contacts with Armenian Diaspora by organizing joint research, publication of books and scholarly journals. Renowned and experienced sociologists from Armenian Diaspora could play an invaluable role in training young Armenian professionals. In the short term, I believe, financial and professional resources of the vast Armenian Diaspora should be more actively engaged for research-based solutions of the problems that the present-day Armenian society is faced with, including sociology. Serious efforts have been made to that end in recent years by the Ministry of Diaspora, Commissioner for Diaspora Affairs under the Prime Minister of Armenia and the Diaspora Department at the Presidium of the National Academy of Sciences that have been specially established in the country.
COMPETING INTERESTS
Author has declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Mkhitarian GE. History of sociological doctrines. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 1974.
2. Khrlopian GT. History of the Armenian social thought. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 1978.
3. Poghosyan G. History of evolution of the Armenian sociological thought, Social Sciences, USA. 2015;4(5):119-126.
4. Armenia. Encyclopedia. Academy of Sciences of Armenia. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2012.
5. Christian Armenia. Encyclopedia. Yerevan. (in Armenian). 2002;631-779.
6. Arevshatian SS, Mirumian KA. History of the Armenian philosophy. The Ancient Period and Early Middle Ages. Yerevan. (in Armenian). 2007;120330.
7. Chaloyan VK. History of the Armenian philosophy. Ancient and Medieval Periods. Yerevan. (in Russian). 1959;118-273.
8. Avakian RO. Monuments of the Armenian law. Yerevan. (in Russian); 2000.
9. Poghosyan GA. Sociology. Armenia. Encyclopedia. Academy of Sciences of Armenia. Yerevan. (in Armenian). 2012;568-571.
10. Osipov VG. Socio-philosophical analysis of contemporary conceptual frameworks of lifelong education. Yerevan; 1989. (in Russian).
11. Mirzoyan VA. The Issue of labor in modern western sociology. Yerevan.
(in Armenian); 1980.
12. Way of Life and Person’s Value Orientations. Yerevan. (in Russian); 1979.
13. Alahverdian SD. Main concepts of sociology. Yerevan. (in Russian); 1980.
14. Issues of Methodology and Techniques of Applied Sociological Research. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 1973.
15. Poghosyan GA. The form of question and researcher’s goal-oriented attitude. Sociological Studies. (in Russian). 1983;3:162-167.
16. Poghosyan GA. The interview method and reliability of sociological information. Yerevan. AN of Armenia. (in Russian); 1985.
17. Poghosyan GA. Data Collection Methods in Sociology. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 1987.
18. Zaslavskaya MI. The issue of evaluating the social context in sociological knowledge. Yerevan. (in Russian); 2010.
19. Poghosyan GA. Destiny of an Armenian in Armenia. Sociological Studies, Moscow. (in Russian). 1994;6:72-96.
20. Poghosyan GA. Armenian society at the beginning of the 21st century. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2006.
21. Karakashian M, Poghosyan G. Armenian migration and diaspora: A way of life. Adler, L. and U. Gielen. World Migration. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. 2003;225-243.
22. Migration Processes in Armenia. (Editor: G. Poghosyan). Yerevan; 2003.
23. Poghosyan G. Out-migration from Armenia. Transboundary Migration in the Post-Soviet Space. Three Comparative Case Studies. Nikolai Genov, Tessa Savvidis (eds.). Peter Lang, Berlin. 2011;39-77.
24. Poghosyan G, Arakelyan I, Osipov V. Migration and depopulation in Armenia. Yerevan. «Limush». (in Russian); 2017.
25. Poghosyan GA, Harutiunian MA, Arakelian VS. Armenia: Alienated society. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2007.
26. Poghosyan GA, Nagdian RN. Personality in the changing society. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2008.
27. Poghosyan GA. Society in times of change: Hopes and reality. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow. (in Russian). 2012;82(5):441450.
28. Poghosyan G, Kentel F. Armenian-Turkish mutual perception. Sociological survey. Yerevan. NAS RA; 2006.
29. Poghosyan GA. Armenian society in transformation. Yerevan. NAS RA. (in Russian); 2003.
30. Poghosyan GA. Modern Armenian society: Peculiarities of transformation. Moscow. «Akademia» Publisher. (in Russian); 2005.
31. Armenian Society in Transition. (Editor: G. Poghosyan). Yerevan; 2009.
32. Arakelyan I, Poghosyan R. Dynamics and structure of labor migration from Armenia. «Sciences of Europe». 2022;87:58-64.
33. Poghosyan G. Armenian Migration. Yerevan. «Europrint»; 2014.
34. Poghosyan GA, Osadchaya GI. Armenian diaspora in Russia: Integration vs repatriation. «Sociological Studies». (in Russian). 2023;1:52-61.
35. Poghosyan GA. Prospects for repatriation or integration of the Armenian diaspora in Russia. «Social Politic and Sociology». (in Russian).
2022;21(2)(143):132-139.
36. Melkumyan Yuliana, Melkonyan Nvard. Immigration of Russian citizens to Armenia during the Russian-Ukrainian war that began in 2022: pull-push factors. Journal of Political Science: Bulletin of Yerevan University. 2023;137-147.
37. Karapetyan RS. Formation of the population of cities in Armenia. Ethnosociological research. Yerevan. NAS RA, “Gitutyun”; 2014.
38. Atanesyan AV, Mkrtichyan AE. Russia as an Ally: Dynamics of perception in Armenian society before and after the Karabakh War of 2020 // Polis. Political issues. 2023;9-26.
39. Integration VS. Repatriation: Social-economical potential of Armenian diaspora in Russia. Collective monography (Ed. G. Poghosyan). Yerevan. Publishing House «Gitutyun», NAS RA. (in Russian); 2022.
40. Harutiunian Manuk. Current Armenian Society and Philosophy of Alienated Consciousness. Yerevan. “Nairi”. (in Armenian); 2014.
41. National Youth Report of Armenia. Part 1. Yerevan. Ministry of Sport and Youth Issues. (In Armenian); 2011.
42. Mkrtichyan A, Vermishyan H, Balasanyan S. Generation of independence. Research among young people. Armenia 2016 // Yerevan, Armenian brunch of Fredrich Ebert Foundation. 2016;134-135.
43. Malkhasyan Mikael, Khachikyan Armen, Malkhasyan Manuk. The current stage of the demographic transition in the Republic of Armenia. Yerevan. YSU Press. (in Armenian); 2023.
44. Trends and Risks of Radicalization of Society. (Chief editor Poghosyan G.A.). Yerevan. “Europrint”. (in Russian); 2019.
45. Sahakyan V. Between host-countries and homeland: Institutions, politics and identities in the post-genocide Armenian diaspora (1920s to 1980s).
Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Ann Arbor.. University of Michigan. 2015;498.
46. Poghosyan GA. Historical memory and national identity, Yerevan. RAU. (in Russian); 2023.
47. Poghosyan GA, Poghosyan RM. Sociocultural identity of modern Armenians. “Sociologicheskie issledovania”. (in Rusian). 2023;11:122127.
48. Poghosyan GA. General outlines for the national identity of modern Armenians. “Sociological Journal”. (in Russian). 2023;4:23–140.
49. Manukyan SA. The problem of social distances in relation to subethnic groups of Armenians in Armenia // Social Sciences and Modernity. (in Russian). 2021;3:101–120.
50. Sarkisyan OL. Cultural resource of identity politics (on the example of Armenia). Bulletin of RAU. (In Russian.) 2018;2(29):28–34.
51. Poghosyan GA. Elections: The Armenian style. Civil Service (scientific and political journal of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Civil Service under the President of the Russian Federation). Moscow. (in Russian). 2013;2(82):91-94
52. Poghosyan GA. Armenian elections: Unfinished piece for the government and opposition. Public Opinion Monitoring. VTSIOM, Moscow. (in Russian). 2013;7(113):136-147.
53. Mkrtchian A. Chaos as a system-creating mechanism of self-organization of society. Yerevan. (in Russian); 2008.
54. Tadevosian GM. Qualitative sociological studies: Theory, methodology and techniques. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2006.
55. Melkonian NA. Methods of sociological research in PR. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2007.
56. Reader: Modern Western Sociology. (Editor: A. E. Mkrtchian). Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2008.
57. Atanesian AV. Topical issues of modern political and conflict communications. Yerevan. (in Russian); 2008.
58. Antonian MA. Social Work. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 1999.
59. Khachatrian A. Social work. Guide for Social Workers. Books 1-10. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2003.
60. Djijian A, Kocharyan R. Social work, charity and “enrooting of christian lifemode”. Yerevan. DALL; 2009.
61. Military Sociology. Collection of materials. (Editor: L.A. Harutiunian). Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2005.
62. Gasparian Yu. Sociology of Entrepreneurship. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2006.
63. History of Western Sociology of the 19th and early 20th Centuries. Manual. (Editor: Yu.A. Gasparian). Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2011.
64. Gasparian Yu. Institute of family: Issues of renewal and evolution. St. Petersburg. (in Russian); 1997.
65. Gasparian Yu. Folk Traditions and customs in the Armenian family. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2003.
66. Hovhannisian M. Philosopher and Sociologist H. Spencer in the Light of the Modern World Outlook (A Critical Study). Tbilisi. 1907. (in Armenian).
67. History of Bourgeois Sociology of the First Half of the 20th Century.
Yerevan. (in Armenian); 1980.
68. Kravchenko AI. Sociology. Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2004.
69. Kyureghian EA. Applied sociology (manual). Yerevan. (in Armenian); 2006.
70. Mirumyan Karlen A. Armenian political theory. the formation and development. Yerevan. RAU Publishing House. (in Russian); 2021.
Information
Prof. Gevorg Poghosyan
Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law, National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, Yerevan, Armenia.
Link to Author's Profile: https://coreacad.org/Member.aspx?ProId=60
