CC BY
65
Rauf GARAGOZOV
Ph.D. (Psychol.), Chief Researcher at the Center for Strategic Studies under the President of the Azerbaijan Republic (Baku, Azerbaijan).
Rena KADYROVA
D.Sc. (Psychol.), Associate Professor at the Psychology Chair of Baku State University
(Baku, Azerbaijan).
THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT FROM THE POSTMODERNIST PERSPECTIVE: CULTURAL GROUNDS FOR BIASED INTERPRETATIONS
Abstract
A
ccording to the theoreticians of postmodernism, social reality is the product of dialogical, communicative socializa-
tion and coordination of the ideas expressed by the participants in the discourse. Based on this view, the idea has gained currency that
the functioning of different forms of knowledge can only be understood by examining their narrative and declarative nature. On the strength of these ideas, this article attempts
to reveal certain cultural grounds for biased interpretations based on an analysis of the narrative structure of a BBC video report about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
I n t r o d u c t i o n
So much has been written about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (Google offers 1,400,000 references in Russian alone, and 1,550,000 in English) that it appears impossible to add anything new. However, we are addressing this topic again, although admittedly not as researchers of the conflict, but rather of its interpretations, or, to be more precise, of one interpretation presented in a recent video report by the BBC Russian Service.1 What made us pick this report? For one thing, although it claims to be neutral, it is another example of the biased attitude (conscious or not) inherent in most of what has already been written, is being written, and will be written about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. What is more, our intention is a little more ambitious: we would like to try and reveal, based on an analysis of this report, some of the cultural grounds2 underlying this kind of interpretation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Social Construction and Narrative Analysis
The new ways of comprehending and analyzing social phenomena that have emerged today, a time often referred to as the postmodernist era, will help us to solve the set task. In particular, the matter concerns viewing social reality as a social construction process.3 Based on this view, the idea has gained currency that the functioning of different forms of knowledge can only be understood by examining their narrative and declarative nature. The end of the 20th century was designated as the beginning of a "narrative turn" in the social sciences and saw the emergence of a new social episte-mology that pays particular attention to different forms of narratives. We will briefly formulate several postulates of this new epistemology:
1. Events, facts, and history are the product of our narration. Otherwise they are beyond our grasp4;
2. In turn, any narration is the result of a certain construction5;
3. In so doing, any narration always contains an interpretation6;
4. The more ingeniously the narration is constructed, the more reliable and in keeping with what actually happened it seems.7
1 The matter concerns the video report of 18 April, 2011 called "Karabakh: istoria pishetsia v dvukh versiiakh," (Karabakh: Two Versions of the Story) prepared by correspondent of the BBC Russian Service Oleg Boldyrev, available at [http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/multimedia/2011/04/110415_v_karabakh_war_history.shtml], 2 May, 2011
2 Of course, there may be political or other grounds for biased interpretations, but we will not discuss them here.
3 See: P. Berger, T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Anchor Books, Garden City, NY, 1996.
4 See: Ibidem.
5 See: W. Martin, Recent Theories of Narrative, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1986.
6 See: K.J. Gergen, "Narrative, Moral Identity and Historical Consciousness: A Social Constructionist Account," available at [http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/faculty/gergen/Narrative_Moral_Identity_and_Historical_ Consciousness.pdf], 25 April, 2011.
7 See: W.L. Bennet, M.S. Feldman, Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 1981.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
5. The visual and sound (music, tone of the reporter's voice, background noise, and so on) impressions created by the media can provide significant conceptual content that is at times equal in relevance to the accompanying text.8
We will analyze the report based on these postulates. Our analysis uses the so-called chronoto-pos method we developed and have presented in other works.9 This method consists of the following: we break down the narrative text into separate blocks or topics which form complete expressions. Then we identify the meanings contained in them, generalize them, and determine the overall meaning of the narration. In this case, our task is made easier since we have a text that has been assembled, that is, literally put together, from separate elements; this makes it easier to break the narration down into fragments (episodes).
Study Target: "Karabakh: Two Versions of the Story"
The report begins with a video series accompanied by the following voice-over10: "The pomegranate trees are running to seed, but we cannot help them. The local residents know that the area has been mined. This blackened orchard has been the victim of war for 20 years now. Five mines and several projectiles were found in the field next to it. And there are many more fields like this in Karabakh." The meaning of this fragment at the beginning of the narration can be provisionally designated as "farming difficulties in Karabakh."
Then a voice accompanied by scenes of gunfire exchange, followed by women (Azeris) lamenting over freshly dug graves and trucks full of refugees (also Azeris), continues: "At first they fought with sticks and stones, then they began shooting, then cannons and tanks, stolen or bought at Soviet military bases, came in to back up the machineguns. In the end, this war was fought by the armies of unrecognized Karabakh and Armenia, on the one side, and Azerbaijan, on the other. The hostility between two once fraternal republics has taken more than 20,000 lives, and more than a million people have become refugees." This fragment, which dispassionately presents statistics of the losses, can be provisionally designated as "escalation of the conflict and losses." Admittedly, nothing is said here about the reason for the conflict, which could give the uninitiated viewer or listener the impression that people were suddenly filled with mutual hatred and began killing each other. Nor is anything said about the fact that most of the refugees are Azeris, who have been driven from their homeland.
A voice off screen goes on to say: "Now the capital of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is like any other provincial center. But as soon as you turn off the main street, evidence of the past fighting is still all too obvious (walls pockmarked with bullet and projectile holes are shown). The capital is in a valley, 10 km up the hill is the city of Shusha. In September 1988, within three days, Armenians left Shusha and Azeris abandoned Stepanakert. A front line formed. Grad projectiles were fired from Shusha on Stepanakert (video series—firing of Grad projectiles, people hiding in their homes), at night people hide in shelters, in the morning they come out to see what is left of their homes (video series—two middle-aged Armenian women are standing in a doorway; the reporter asks them): "What are you doing out in the street?"— (One of the women answers): "I'm not out in the street,
8 See: G. Kress, Th. Van Leeuwen, Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, Routlege, New York, 1996. 289 pp.
9 See: R. Garagozov (Karakozov), Development of Sense Comprehension in Reading, SPIEL: 13, 1996, H. 1, pp. 114-123.
10 Since this video report did not have a written transcript, we had to transcribe it in writing ourselves (in italics), retaining the style of the statements as much as possible. We underlined some of the words and phrases in the written text in order to analyze and draw the reader's attention to them. Our comments and explanations to the transcribed text are given in parentheses.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
I've been standing around here for an hour, I can't go home or get to work." This fragment, which concentrates entirely on the vicissitudes of the life of the Armenian population of Stepanakert during the active stage of the conflict, can be designated as "the crisis situation in Stepanakert caused by shelling from Shusha." In the next fragment, which shows a tank, we are told: "A tank that began the Armenians' victorious attack on Shusha 19 years ago still stands on the outskirts of the town. But there are enough other reminders. The life of Shusha can hardly be called urban. Although people somehow still manage to live here, many homes have been abandoned forever. The ruins of this mosque and this abandoned armored artillery vehicle are just a small reminder of the town's former inhabitants. The most important thing for the Armenians' self-identity has been restored (shot of an Armenian church). When Bishop Parkev returned to Shushi (for some reason the reporter pronounces the name of the town of Shusha in the Armenian way—Shushi), Grad projectiles were kept in the wrecked Christ the Savior church. The church was rebuilt. (For the first time, we see the reporter.) The bishop is sure that the entire town will follow suit and be rebuilt. Shushi, according to him, will become the cultural center of Karabakh. And peace will be possible." It is worth noting both the verbal statements chosen for the narration (...many homes have been abandoned forever. "The ruins of this mosque and abandoned armored artillery vehicle are just a small reminder of the town's former inhabitants," "The most important thing for the Armenians' self-identity has been restored") and the visual shots accompanying this fragment: a destroyed mosque and a restored Armenian church shown in all its splendor. All of this makes it possible to designate this fragment as "overcoming the crisis by capturing the town of Shusha and driving out its former inhabitants (Azeris)."
However, judging from the next fragment, it is still too early for the Armenians to feel so reassured. Azerbaijan is destroying the idyll, which "for some reason" does not want to reconcile itself with the current state of affairs. The narration goes on to say: "But like everyone here, the bishop believes that Azerbaijan must take the first step. (Shot of Bishop Parkev, who says): "Until the situation is resolved, no one can feel very confident of course. The hostilities might flare up again at any moment, since we often hear aggressive outbursts from the leader of the Azerbaijan Republic. Ifwe go for a compromise for the sake ofpeace, it should be mutual. But today the president of Azerbaijan is putting forward unreasonable demands that look nothing like a compromise." This fragment can be designated as "the uncompromising Azeris, who have no wish to make peace, are preventing the restoration of a peaceful life." The narration continues as follows: "This house is occupied (shot of a sign in Russian on the gates of the house). Shusha is Armenian; the people of Karabakh believe that history has already been rewritten. On the outskirts of the city stands the house of famous Azeri composer Bulbuloglu. In the garden is a bust of his father destroyed by shelling. Now postal worker Liuda from Stepanakert lives there. Her house was destroyed by a bomb. 'How can I go back, where can I go if my apartment no longer exists,' says Liuda. 'You mean it has been completely destroyed?' asks the correspondent. 'Yes, there is nothing left but bare ground,' replies postal worker Liuda." This fragment can be called "Armenians are taking up residence in Shusha." So far we have been seeing and hearing the voices of the Armenian side. In the next episode, Bulbuloglu presents the Azeri viewpoint, managing to say, "Of course it is very painful to see my father's home..., before his voice is drowned out by the correspondent's voice-over, saying, "Bulbuloglu, Ambassador of Azerbaijan to Russia. He, which is unique for the Azeris, managed to visit his father's home. He visited Shusha twice with a delegation of cultural figures and spoke to the woman now living in the house. He says their conversation was genial. But relations on a personal level are one thing, and the ambassador's official position is another." Again there is a shot of Bulbuloglu, who says, "When they talk about a compromise, what does this compromise consist of? Giving up a piece of your land and saying, go and live on it as you wish? What sort of compromise is that? We are the ones offering a compromise. We are willing to see the Armenians living there alongside the Azeris who lived there as part of Azerbaijan in conditions of the highest autonomy. This is the only solution to the situation. But in order for it to work, the occupied territories taken under fire must first be returned. Today the goodwill of the Azeri leadership and the president of Azerbaijan is conducive to resolving this issue peacefully.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
And to be frank, society is ready for this, the people are fed up with the whole thing, they say that enough is enough, the problem must be resolved." In this fragment, we hear the opinion of the opposing side in the conflict, that is, the Azeris, for the first time, albeit with cut-ins and innuendos (see the underlined phrases in the narration). The latent meaning to be drawn from the reporter's comments can be defined as follows: "at the personal level, the Azeris can socialize and make peace with the Armenians, but the government's official irreconcilable position is preventing this."
The narration then returns to Stepanakert (video series: airport in Stepanakert; voice-over): "Here is a new point of tension. For the first time in 20 years, the airport in Stepanakert is preparing to receive civilian flights. The runway destroyed by bombs has been restored and, at the beginning of May, an airplane, flying over the mountains from Armenia, is due to land here. Baku is protesting—a breakaway community cannot control Azerbaijan's sky. The people of Karabakh are saying that this land and sky is theirs." Shot of one of the local Armenian leaders, who says, "The people of Karabakh have their own main question—the future of NKR. If we find a solution to the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh, it must be higher than the current status, and then all the other questions that result from or might be consequences of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be much easier to resolve." This fragment can be designated as "Azerbaijan is preventing the restoration of peaceful life in Nagorno-Karabakh."
In the next fragment, the reporter's narration begins almost heroically, "When the time came to defend his home village, Alexander (an invalid on crutches appears on the screen) ascended these hills and took up defense against the enemy ensconced on the nearby summits." A phrase follows that does not entirely jive with the previous, "In February 1992, refugees from the village of Khojali stretched out along this valley." (It is not clear why Azeris began fleeing Khojali, if the talk before this was about Armenians defending their village.) Alexander continues talking on screen: "And when they approached Agdam, the Azeris began attacking us. And there was artillery fire." (Again, this does not jive with the former statement. It is difficult to imagine how refugees from Khojali could attack Armenian positions set up in advance. Evidently understanding the weakness of this statement, the reporter says), "Alexander is talking about the most bloody events of that war. But this is only one of two opposing versions of what happened. In two days, 500 residents of Khojali were killed or later froze to death. (Video series—Azeris lamenting over the bodies of the perished residents of Khojali.) The Armenians claim that there was firing from the crowd of refugees. The Azerbaijani side is sure that peaceful citizens were deliberately killed. The people of Karabakh are indignant about these statements. They call the accusations that many residents were shot point blank a fabrication." This fragment can be designated as "there are different versions of what happened in Khojali."
This fragment deserves special attention since it is one of the key elements of the report. Although it is called "Karabakh: Two Versions of the Story," this is the first time we are told there are "opposing versions ofwhat happened." This assertion, as we believe, is of special significance in understanding the entire narration, which we will discuss in more detail a little later. But let us return to the report. The reporter goes on to say, "The evidence of fighting is still so obvious it is as though it happened just yesterday. And the venom with which the Armenians and Azeris defend their truth is also as strong as ever. Fifteen years after the war, there are still two versions of the story. There on a promontory stands a monument to one of the 60 Armenian soldiers who were killed. The path goes past positions where now Armenians, now Azeris were entrenched for 4years. Alexander believes that it is best not to dig up the past, then peaceful coexistence will be possible. But, as always, there must be the right conditions for this. (Alexander says), 'Nothing good will come of digging up the past again. Digging up the past...But it still has a way of revealing itself. The best thing is to come to terms. Come to terms on how we can live here independently. Let them live here ifthey want. But it is our land, we will never leave.'" This fragment can be designated as "there is no need to dig up the past, the Azeris should agree to our conditions." We are then informed that "people are digging up history, sometimes literally. Historian Vagram Varitsian (he appears on screen) took me to the ruins of the town of Tigranakert. The foundations of a 5th-6th-century church can be found here. On the hill is a citadel founded in the first century BC. The archeological searches appear to be peaceful, but Varitsian admits that there are also political implications. It must be proven that Armenians have also
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
lived in lowland Karabakh from time immemorial. At the foot of the ancient city, fresh history is in evidence. A row of entrenchments still not overgrown with grass. Here ancient stones sleep. Here two enemies stand side by side." This fragment, which contains a historical excursion of dubious nature (Varitsian's confession that the archeological digs have political implications) can be designated as "Karabakh is time-honored Armenian land."Then the reporter appears again and says, "There, on the horizon, in the mountains, is one of the best fortified frontiers in the world, the so-called line of contact between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan. The war came to an end in 1994, when the sides stopped firing. But, of course, there is no contact there. Tens of thousands of soldiers on both sides are separated by hundreds of meters of mine fields. (Again the reporter's voice can be heard off screen): And these tens of thousands ofsoldiers still wait in full combat-readiness." The meaning is as follows: "The crisis has still not been fully resolved." (V. Kazimirov11 appears on screen): "Of course, I think that peaceful settlement can be reached. But this primarily requires a solution to question number one ... exclusion of the possibility that the hostilities will be resumed. As soon as the possibility of renewed hostilities is excluded, the Azeris will have no other choice but to look for solutions at the negotiation table, while the Armenians will have no reason to hold onto the territory they gra... (quickly corrects himself) occupied during the hostilities." This peacekeeping appeal to the Azeris by Kazimirov, who almost made a blunder, is essentially a call "to the Azeris to recognize and reconcile themselves with the current situation." Then we hear the reporter's voice again: "There in the distance is the destroyed town of Agdam that once supplied the Soviet country with magnificent port wine. Before the war, almost 30,000 Azeris lived there. During the war, the Armenian positions were fired on from there using heavy artillery. In 1993, tens of thousands of Agdam residents became refugees. The Soviet constitution (it appears that everyone eulogizes it here) could do nothing to help them. The town was razed to the ground. Now for the people of Karabakh this dead landscape is just part of a defense complex that keeps the enemy's cannons at a safe distance." This fragment is worth noting for the fact that it continues the Armenian version of events (during the war, the Armenian positions were fired on from there using heavy artillery). But for some reason, it is not explained why in particular "tens of thousands of Agdam residents became refugees." The meaning of this episode is as follows: "Agdam was destroyed because the Azeris fired on the Armenians." And, finally, the reporter's concluding phrase, "People can talk for hours about what happened on this land200 or 500years ago. But they are unwilling to talk about what the future will be like (shot of a blossoming tree), except perhaps to compare Karabakh to the Middle East conflict. If this is so, it turns out that the main heritage of the Soviet empire in these environs is mutual hate and mistrust." To sum up the reporter's thought, "the future of these environs is uncertain, and the main heritage of the Soviet empire is mutual hate and mistrust."
Conceptual Plan and Moral Implications of the Report
Following our chronotopos method, the conceptual definitions identified in our analysis can be grouped into the following general semantic blocks (A, B, C, D):
(A) "Period of crisis and suffering for the Armenians that has been overcome:"
(1) "the crisis situation in Stepanakert caused by shelling from Shusha;"
(2) "overcoming the crisis by capturing the town of Shusha and driving out its former inhabitants (Azeris);"
(3) "The town ofAgdam was also destroyed because Azeris fired on Armenians from there;"
11 Ex-cochairman of the Minsk OSCE Group for Russia, retired diplomat who is known for his pro-Armenian position shown in his calling for the Azeris to proceed from the current reality and recognize the status quo that developed during the war.
(B)
"Restoration of a peaceful life:"
(1) "Armenians take up residence in Shusha;"
(2) "Karabakh is time-honored Armenian land;"
(C) "The crisis is not entirely over since the Azeris, who do not wish to make peace, are
preventing the restoration of a peaceful life:"
(1) "farming difficulties in Karabakh;"
(2) "Azerbaijan is preventing the restoration of life in Karabakh;"
(3) "uncompromising Azeris who do not wish to make peace;"
(4) "the crisis has still not been entirely resolved."
(D) "The Azeris should recognize and reconcile themselves to the current situation:"
(1) "there are different versions of what happened in Khojali;"
(2) "there is no need to dig up the past, the Azeris should agree to our (the Armenians') conditions;"
(3) the Azeris can make peace with the Armenians on a personal level, but the government's official position prevents this;"
(4) "the Azeris should recognize and reconcile themselves to the current situation."
So, this report, which presents a narration of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, primarily expresses the position of one side in the conflict—the Armenian. This position is voiced by the Armenians, Kazimirov, and, finally, the reporter himself, which goes beyond the bounds of neutrality dictated by journalistic ethics. The reporter's "pro-Armenian" position is shown in how the narrative is constructed. For example, we are told how the Azeri side fired on the Armenians from Shusha and Agdam, but there is no talk about the Armenian side firing on the Azeris, although it was the Azeris who were forced to flee from Karabakh. Essentially (apart from Bulbuloglu's words), we do not hear what the Azeris have to say. On the whole, the narrative itself is internally contradictory. The verbal and visual elements of the report contradict each other to a certain extent: we are always being told that "the Azeris are attacking and the Armenians are defending themselves," however, we see pictures of sobbing Azeri women and men and Azeri refugees. The biased nature of the report reaches its peak in the episodes that relate the Khojali events. Here it is not so important that, consciously or nor, the number of people killed in this war is downplayed, although this characterizes the author of the report to some extent. The reporter's claim that there are different versions of what happened in Khojali is much more important and serious in its consequences.
There may seem to be nothing particularly wrong in this, the reporter is only presenting the opinion of the sides: the Azeri ("peaceful residents were deliberately killed") and the Armenian, even if the argument the Armenian side resorts to in an attempt to justify the mass slaughter of the people of Khojali looks absurd ("the Armenians claim that people fired from among the crowd of refugees").
The reporter's claim that there are different versions of what happened in Khojali makes the most terrible and tragic event of the Karabakh war—the destruction of the Azeri town of Khojali and the mass slaughter of its peaceful population—relative, thus, in some measure, casting doubt on its virtuality. The deaths of hundreds of peaceful residents of Khojali (a total of 613 people, including 106 women, 63 young children, and 70 old people) at the hands of Armenian soldiers is not a version, but a fact that everyone knows about.12 To doubt this means reducing man's moral nature to naught
12 According to the data of authoritative international organizations, in the small hours of 26 February, 1992, the Azeri town of Khojali was razed to the ground in just a few hours by Armenian fighters with the support of servicemen of the 366th regiment of the CIS Joint Forces, and hundreds of its peaceful residents were brutally slaughtered. During these
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
and glossing over the moral aspects of the evil committed. But can we count on achieving stable and long-term peaceful settlement of the conflict if crimes against humanity, no matter who committed them or for what cause, are not named as such? Did the author of the report comprehend this aspect and, if so, what objective was he pursuing in his report? However, we will not dig into what motivated the author.
We can presume that the author of the report did not consciously set himself the task of questioning the fact of the Khojali tragedy. He could have been the victim of the biased nature of his report, which reflected the Armenian version of the story. The thing is that any historical narration performs a whole series of social functions, one of which promotes the configuration of our identity and our endowment with moral qualities. Revealing the logic of the moral function of the historical narrative, K. Gergen notes, "People with our history do not engage in X; we uphold the ideals of Y; as you chose Y over X, you are one of us; you are a good and worthy person, a moral being."13 This is precisely why the fact of the Khojali slaughter does not jive with the Armenian idea of identity and history and, correspondingly, does not fit into the framework of this biased "pro-Armenian" version of the history of the conflict offered us in this report and in many other interpretations.
Enough has been said, we think, to recognize the "one voice-ness" of the report, its one-sided approach, and, so, its biased nature.
Cultural Grounds for Biased Interpretations
Frankly speaking, biased reports on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are nothing new, so this report can shed no extra light on the matter. But a narrative analysis of this report makes it possible to see the cultural grounds for the biased interpretations. By virtue of this, we will look at only a few.
At one time, research studies14 showed that people perceive a well-structured narrative (clear topic, well-defined beginning and end, logical connections between the parts, and so on) relating a fictional story as more legitimate and real than a poorly structured rendition of real events. The narrative constructed by the BBC reporter certainly has its flaws. For example, it is internally contra-
events, according to official data, 613 people were killed and 1,000 peaceful citizens of different ages were maimed by bullet wounds. On the night of the tragedy, 1,275 peaceful citizens were taken prisoner and nothing is known about the fate of 150 of them to this day. International organizations reported the particular cruelty with which the Armenians treated the defenseless civilian population of Khojali, including the many instances of desecration of the bodies of the perished Azeris (see: Human Rights Watch World Report, 1993; Th. Goltz, "Nagorno-Karabagh Victims Buried in Azerbaijani Town," The Washington Post, 28 February, 1992; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojali_Massacre#cite_ref-4], 3 May, 2011; BBC1 Morning News at 08:12, Tuesday, 3 March, 1992; "Massacre by Armenians Being Reported," The New York Times, 3 March, 1992; Human Rights Watch / Helsinki. Azerbaijan: Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, New York, 1994, available at [http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1993/WR93/Hsw-07.htm], 3 May, 2011; finally, there is a confession by Serzh Sarkisian, who at that time was one of the leaders of the Armenian armed contingents that attacked Khojali and now president of Armenia, who noted, "Before Khojali, the Azerbaijanis thought that they were joking with us, they thought that the Armenians were people who could not raise their hand against the civilian population. We were able to break that [stereotype]. And that's what happened." English researcher Thomas De Waal, who presented these words, notes, "Sarkisian's account throws a different light on the worse massacre of the Ka-rabakh war, suggesting that the killings may, at least in part, have been a deliberate act of mass killing as intimidation" (Th. De Waal, Black Garden. Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, New York University Press, New York, London, 2003, p. 172).
13 K.J. Gergen, op.cit.
14 See: W.L. Bennett, M.S. Feldman, op. cit.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
dictory. The verbal and visual elements of the report contradict each other to a certain extent: we are always being told that "the Azeris are attacking and the Armenians are defending themselves," but we see pictures of sobbing Azeri women and men and Azeri refugees. However, any viewer or listener unfamiliar with the conflict details is unlikely to be able to identify the ethnic affiliation of the sobbing and fleeing people shown on screen, so this video report could generate a certain impression of "reality:" the Azeri side, "due to stubbornness, government pressure, or some other unknown reason, is preventing the restoration of peaceful life in Karabakh." In this respect, when talking about the cultural grounds for the biased attitude, another important aspect should be noted. Armenian culture has a long tradition of constructing historical narratives, particularly those built on the concept of "victimization," while the Azerbaijan culture is relatively young.15 And "well-constructed" "victimization" narratives of the Armenian side doubtlessly have an advantage (apart from anything else, "victimization" narratives always arouse empathy among the public); it is easier for them to convince an uninitiated audience of the reconstructed "reality." But it in no way follows from this that the author of this report, as incidentally the authors of other narrations about the conflict, should go along with what seems to be a legitimate story, if, of course, they want to show their competence and remain loyal to their professional ethics, or, simply, their humanness. In this respect, an important way to avoid the narrative trap to a certain extent is to create narratives that present many voices that convey different views and perspectives.
In Lieu of a Conclusion
In the final analysis, a story told from the viewpoint of just one of the sides in the conflict can hardly make this conflict easier to understand, find dialogical points of contact, or discover a way to truly resolve it. For reality, as the theoreticians of postmodernism tell us, is the product of dialogical, communicative socialization and coordination of the ideas expressed by the participants in the discourse.
In conflict situations like Nagorno-Karabakh, particular types of dialogical narratives are needed which reveal, rather than gloss over, the truth. It is obvious that the voices of the other side, in our case, the Azeris, have to be included for a dialog to take place. In so doing, it is important to hear their version of the story, even if they are not as proficient in relating it. And then we may find out how, at the end of the 20th century, the Armenian ethnic nationalism card was played on the Karabakh stage; how ethnic cleansing of villages populated by Azeris took place; how the tragedy in Khojali was played out; and how dear and important Shusha and Karabakh itself, and much more, are for the identity of the Azeris. In such a dialog, the sides will most likely hear many unflattering stories about each other. But only in this way, by creating a space for dialog (and here journalists and international organizations claiming impartiality should not interfere with the sides in the conflict, but help them), can we hope that the mutual hate and mistrust between the sides in the conflict the author talks about at the end of his report will be overcome.
! See: R. Garagozov, Metamorfozy kollektivnoi pamiati v Rossii i na Tsentralnom Kavkaze, Nurlan, Baku, 2005.
