Many other topics will be written after this one. Topics, which are out in the open and it seems as if they force you to pay attention. But there is one topic, one field which is not out in the open 24 hours a day. It is remembered from time to time but it is hard not to pay attention to it.
We are talking about our intellectuality. I am and will always be certain that, besides having the permanently neglected intellectuality pushed to one side, we have a group of people who call themselves intellectuals. They have the certificate for that and can show it at any given time. Those intellectuals have been living like this for the past century and have been feeding on themselves. They keep doing this and raise their children to be like that too. What they don’t have is the look of an intellectual and are only satisfied with the title of being one.
We wouldn’t need to draw our attention to them if it hadn’t been for the recent meeting they held, remaining true to Soviet tradition in order to unanimously say “we agree”. This refers to the defense of the upcoming constitutional amendments referendum. As a rule, according to old custom, the issue was discussed, criticized and protested. Some said that it could not be, that the country was falling apart and that intellectuality is neglected, there were some passionate speeches….the two-day long discussion of the document led to an unanimous vote for “yes”. Everything was settled and the intellectuals went out to drink, feeling proud that someone had asked for their opinion and that it would have been difficult without them.
Of course, voting for the constitution means saying either “yes” or “no”. Each person decides for himself and nobody can criticize or condemn the other for his choice. The intellectuality also has the right to choose between “yes” or “no”, but the intellectual differs from the rest in that he doesn’t feel the need to go along with the majority’s opinion and has his own personal approach to any issue. He must be an individual and not go along with someone’s opinion, someone who may be considered part of an impersonal mass and express his opinion by copying the majority of people or according to what the authorities will demand.
We must take two things into consideration: first of all, forming a common opinion is too Soviet and has become a usual thing for Armenian intellectuals. Secondly, our intellectuals are not used to saying “no” to any initiative taken by someone or the authorities. It was absurd to wait for an orientation from the society as a whole in those times. The intellectual won again and had to win by the old custom of agreeing unanimously.
After seventy years (add fifteen years which have kept everything in order), we still go along with the customs and can not break loose. It turns out that during these past years, the people with this mentality sent from above have always gathered and unanimously condemned or come to terms, and fulfilled the authorities’ demands. Then, without any sense of remorse, they have continued living their lives. They have not even thought about the fact that their “yes” could have been fatal for someone or may have been the reason for someone else to commit suicide.
Let’s go back to the 1930s and 1940s, when this type of intellectuality was thinking this way, adapting to everything by saying “yes” and being the ones guilty for the hundreds of innocent deaths as a result of their opinions. How about the 1950s, when intellectuals were once again condemning any new idea; the 60s and 70s when they were the all-mighty and ruling, their publications were being published and published-nothing was demanded of them, not even talent. All the intellectuals had to do was to condemn without thinking twice. It didn’t matter who-be it Pasternak, international imperialism, Sionism, Sakharov, the dissidents protecting the interests of international imperialism and others.
This was not only a monopoly owned by Armenians. Every Soviet country was like this, however, in other places you would see a representative of the intellectuality suddenly appear, someone like Daniel and a Sinyavski; Berdnik or Rudenko, Galich or Visotski, Orlov and Solzhenitsi; and the list goes on. These are all new names for the Armenian reader, but no intellectual out of us. Our intellectuals were only voting “yes” unanimously and the two really talented and opinionated intellectuals shrank down in size by one blow of the majority and did not even appear. We can explain this by the fact that these people who always voted for everything could not write prose or serious literature and they would mix nationalism with the officially allowed and encouraged anti-Turkism. Thus, they would create a literature full of anti-Turkism which was supposed to be contagious for the generation with its narrow nationalism. A generation, whose nationalism starts by describing the tragic events of the Armenian Genocide and ending with the “Russians saved us.
The army of intellectuals formed during the 70 years of Soviet rule could not write something which would be prohibited by the Soviet Union or to have the Soviets confiscate the hand-written work, so we would proudly publish that work nowadays when we are free and independent. We would let the people know how intellectual we are….Not one line has been written. The reason for this is that any poet or writer, any beginner or professional first takes into consideration the censure, the literary critics who did not need a “Glavlit” composed of critics who looked at everything from their point of views, the way that it needed to be observed. Being somebody and a professional in any field at that time meant to perfectly understand what was being demanded of you and go along with that.
Today, nothing has changed. Nowadays, from time to time, the same intellectuals reminisce about the good old days, their publications reaching the thousands, publications with which they had nothing to do. The bookstores would sell their books, the libraries would buy them. Then, they would get a sponsor-in other words, everything was done according to the plan. It turned out that nothing was expected of them: only a vote which could have stolen one hour of their precious time. A short meeting-Charents was not there, a mandatory “yes”-it seemed as if Bakunts was not there, Pasternak was a Sionism agent while Solzherntsi was considered a traitor.
It’s the same mentality and same custom. Intellectuality has not changed either. They have the same faces, waiting for some warning and the same hands voting “yes” and….they are still in the same places.
These past fifteen years changed many of us. We have new journalists, economists and sellers. There are no more bus stops, community government buildings; the Marxism/Leninism professors are now teaching religion. Everything has changed and keeps on changing, even Communists have turned into nationalists. Only the hundred intellectuals with membership cards are the ones trying to bring the condemned Soviet customs back to life.