We are finally mature enough to have clean urban movement – Armenian sociologist

Sociology Professor Lyudmila Harutyunyan has shared her views on the new social ideas and the sets of values governing the present-day world, particularly the Armenian society. In an interview with Tert.am, the sociologist commented on the new trends in the light of the continuing protests outside the Yerevan City Hall, calling for setting aside the theoretical discourse and searching a new model of Armenia’s modernization in the ongoing youth action.

We are living in an exceptional period, with the globe facing an attack of goals and traditional sacred sets of values. Yet, there is another starting point – what is now called progressivism – which is a civilization impasse, as it is. It is especially sociologists that answer this question today. Does the sociological thought in Armenia work in this direction?

I wouldn’t like to evaluate my colleagues’ work in any direction. That’s a general philosophical issue, so you would better ask what troubles me at the moment.

We’ll talk about it a bit later. But I would kindly ask you, nonetheless, to answer the question, maintaining, of course, the professional ethics. Because without our own sociological thought in the new world we start somewhat cumbering the ground, which is very dangerous.

You know, the social sciences face a crisis in all places across the globe. It is more profound in our case because we managed to overcome Marxism without later filling the gap. But the social crisis is the methodology itself.

You mean the place remained vacant after throwing off Marxism, and we have no idea on how to study the new society and the crises falling on it?

We, the specialists, do not really know how to study these new crises. The long period of Marxism has left its imprint on the social thought. And the methodology to study the present-day Armenian society has not been found yet.

Appreciating your openness, anyway, I would like to ask you whether this is a stagnation of thought given that the two clear-cut models – the conservative which used to explain the present by the past, and the progressive one, when the past was understood and construed by the present – have always worked.

You had better avoid giving a hard time. My idea is more interesting than yours.


You are welcome to express you idea. What I seek to do is to find out what resources exist in the professional circles today and to what extent they succeed in communicating with the new civilization systems.

The most interesting question for Armenia today is what the youth sitting in front of the City Hall do or want. That’s the key question.

In my humble opinion, those movements are an effect rather than a cause. And had we set the society’s mind in motion, our feet wouldn’t feel so worn-out today. Doesn’t this movement, too, disperse the existing pro-opposition energy or - what’s even worse - reduce the agenda of the political platform into the social shelves?

This is a socio-political movement which has been spread across Europe for quite a long time, and is now taking place in Armenia. As a specialist, I can say that the movement is a sign that we have finally grown mature for having a clean urban movement. That’s a big success and a big delight. It, of course, has a political coloring, but this is an urban movement.

You actually pushed us into this topic, which I think, is the derivative of a more in-depth question. Perhaps we’ll return, anyway, to the questions I mentioned.

No, I am not going to speak only about this today. You are not a specialist, and you don’t have an idea as to the social content and the consequences of this movement.

Explain it please. I do not unfortunately see anything new about all this. Things that have been experienced, measured and cut … I would say an Armenian anti-revolutionary model.

Not in the least. Movements take shape depending on the necessity and demand. A town is a living body, and a town has to have policies of its own. Yerevan does not have any policies at all. And the demand for policies should have naturally developed after the [municipal] election. The city authorities should have unveiled the policies of Yerevan. The youth today rebels against those officials; that serves them right. Those officials do not have the necessary potential to govern the city.


Do you think this movement can split the entire institutional system apart?

You know the movement does not have to dismantle the whole institutional system. But the police conduct, for example, demolishes the entire system. That body does not realize that it is itself destroying [everuthing]. Officials have to know what to do with the system.

Do you think there is an ideological content behind the authorities’ conduct? What are its components?

I don’t understand why you are asking that question to me. The society today has undergone an adaptation process, so an official has to realize that the old methodology no longer works. That’s it. I do not make an analysis of the nation’s level; what I analyze is the level of a citizen. If we have a long nose, that doesn’t mean we have to impart a nationalistic coloring to all things. We now have citizens. And the civil maturity is perhaps the most important element of modernization.

Interview by Varduhi Simonyan