YSU associate professor publishes Scopus-indexed study on Vahan Tekeyan's publicist work

Gor Abrahamyan's article, "Issues of Sovietization of the Republic of Armenia and Russian Orientation in the Publicism of Vahan Tekeyan 1920–1945", focuses on the publicist writings of the renowned Armenian writer and socio-political figure Vahan Tekeyan in the context of political decisions, foreign alignments, and strategies for preserving statehood following the collapse of the First Republic of Armenia.

We spoke with the author of the article, Gor Abrahamyan, about his study.

Q: Mr. Abrahamyan, what is the main focus of your research, and what questions does it address?

A: The article analyzes Vahan Tekeyan's publicist work concerning the period following the establishment of the First Republic of Armenia, particularly the collapse of statehood and the challenges of Sovietization. The study centers on public discourse surrounding Armenia's foreign alignment, especially justifications for a Russian orientation in the context of both domestic and pan-Armenian developments, as well as broader international events. 

My aim was to show how Armenian intellectuals, as represented by Tekeyan, approached these issues and what kinds of debates emerged over strategies for preserving statehood. This choice involved two key considerations: ensuring the continuity of Eastern Armenia's statehood and exploring possibilities for addressing the question of Western Armenia.

Q: Why is this topic relevant today?

A: The topic remains relevant as current developments surrounding Armenia show certain parallels to the realities of the First Republic and the following period. I wanted to understand how Armenian socio-political thought at the time shaped discourse, which narratives it employed, and how it influenced public perceptions—seeking to explain emerging challenges and opportunities.

One of the primary objectives of the study was to uncover the internal logic of Tekeyan's publicist thought, its causal links, and its impact on both public consciousness and political processes.

Q: How does your study address shifts in the Armenian diaspora's positions??

A: It is particularly interesting to examine the differences between perspectives in Armenia and in the diaspora. While preserving the statehood of Eastern Armenia was the primary concern within the Republic, a significant portion of the diaspora prioritized the question of Western Armenia. Over time, the high expectations placed on the Entente powers after World War I gave way to disappointment, accompanied by evolving attitudes toward Russia.

Q: How did Tekeyan's views evolve in this context? 

A: Tekeyan's publicist work reflects the full trajectory of these shifts. Initially, the Russian factor was largely rejected; however, after 1920, it gradually came to be seen as a potential solution. Tekeyan even attempted to persuade Soviet authorities to consider deploying troops to Western Armenia. Although this initiative was unrealistic given the relations between Soviet Russia and Kemalist Turkey, it demonstrates his determination regarding the fate of Western Armenia. 

When that option proved unfeasible, Tekeyan began to advocate Sovietization as the only viable means to preserve Eastern Armenia's statehood.

Q: What impact did his writings have on public thinking?

A: One key aspect of the study was understanding how publicist writings shaped public perceptions. It is notable that from the 1920s until the end of his life, Tekeyan sought to understand the reasons behind the First Republic's failure, analyzing both the political elite and broader public thinking. A consistent thread in his writings is the idea that the Armenian people must not become a pawn of any major power, as the nation's future was at stake.

Q: What sources did you use for your research? 

A: The study draws on approximately 250 publications from press outlets in various countries. These include Arev, a newspaper edited by Tekeyan in Egypt, and Zhoghovrdi Dzayn, a periodical published in Constantinople. Publications from Ramkavar, Dashnak, and other press orientations were also included to ensure comprehensive coverage.

The research employed methods such as content analysis, comparative analysis, and cross-referencing, drawing on both primary sources and existing scholarly literature.

Q: Why has Tekeyan, as a public figure, been less studied?  

A: While Tekeyan has been extensively studied as a writer, his publicist work, particularly in connection with political activity, has received relatively little scholarly attention. However, current developments in Armenia once again highlight the relevance of examining publicist writings from that period. It is therefore important to reassess not only Tekeyan’s work but also that of other publicists of the time to better understand their influence on public opinion.

Q: How important is it to make research on these topics accessible on international scholarly platforms? 

A: It is extremely important, both to ensure Armenia's presence in international scholarship and to make Armenian topics accessible to the international scholarly community. I also see this as part of scientific diplomacy. The more publications appear in high-ranking international journals, the greater Armenia's scientific visibility. At the same time, such studies should remain accessible to local scholars and spark discussion within Armenian academic circles.