Although diversity within distinctive territory has created a modern cultural baseline, nationalism remains the most powerful source of communal identification. The internal factors of national identity are fluid–structural meaning is shifted through the constant social exchange of citizens. These elements include a shared historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass, public culture, a common economy, and legal duties and rights for all citizens (Smith 1991, p.14). However, a national identity only becomes salient in comparison. External nations become the contrasting background, sharpening the blur of changing uniformity. Triandafyllidou expands this concept, introducing the “significant other”--a external nation that crucially shapes and transforms the development of mass identity (Triandafyllidou, 1998).
When a country’s territorial and symbolic boundaries are unstable, the “other” becomes distinguishable, serving as a re-affirmation of what a nation is not. As long as a significant other is “active” in its role, a constant threat is sensed by the receiving nation (Triandafyllidou, 1998, p. 600). These concepts are especially applicable to nations with resilient identities, such as Armenia. Significant others have been majorly formative in establishing the nation’s cultural richness. Through examining language, religion, territory, and conflict, Armenia’s contrasting qualities sharpen against surrounding nations.
1.) Traditionally, it was believed Christianity was preached in Armenia as early as the second half of the first century (Tchilingirian, 2014, p. 472). Being the first nation to adopt Christianity as its state religion in 301, the Armenian Apostolic Church has remained a foundational aspect of the nation’s continual identity (Tchilingirian, 2014, p. 471). Even their national language was born from a biblical context. Apostolic Christians stress that Armenian was divinely inspired, as it was essentially created to translate the Scriptures from Greek (van Lint, 2009, p. 272). Except for changes in two signs, the language has stayed the same since 405 BCE, allowing for literary culture to remain rich and true to original interpretations. This served immensely in preserving the Apostolic faith (van Lint, 2009, p. 272).
The church is the only national institution in Armenian history that has existed continuously–even when the country lost its statehood under the USSR (Tchilingirian, 2014, p. 471). Alongside other religious groups, the Armenian church suffered enormously under Soviet rule. Priests were continuously killed and a vast number of church properties were lost (Tchilingirian, 2014, p. 474). After Stalin's death however, Romanian-born Catholicos Vazgen I was elected to lead the churches, revitalizing the Apostolic branch (Tchilingirian, 2014, p. 474). Once the Soviet Union completely shattered in 1991, the church was liberated.
Russia’s role in attempting to wipe out Armenia’s central religion is a prime example of what Triandafyllidou defines as an “external” significant other. While threatening Armenia’s entire nationhood, the USSR also attempted to erase the Apostolic branch in Christianity–challenging both the nation’s physical and spiritual distinctiveness. Triandafyllidou identifies the external significant other’s threat as an erasure of self-determination (Triandafyllidou, 1998, p. 603). Yet this attempt was not successful, and 98.7% of Armenia’s population still identify with the Apostolic faith (Tchilingirian, 2014, p. 471). Adding to this cultural independence, the national language is modernly distinguished as a separate branch in the Indo-European language family (Pisowicz, 2025). Texts are just as readable as they were when the language was invented--Armenian continues to bring ancient roots to modern people. The nation’s uniqueness is upheld by the individual branches of Armenian understanding.
2.) Through the Middle Ages, Christian Armenians inhabited the plateau of Eastern Anatolia (present day Turkey) alongside the Muslim Kurds. Armenian dynasties remained in power until migrations of Turkic-speaking peoples challenged political structures in the 11th century (Suny, 2026). This led to the conquering of the region by the Ottoman empire in the 15th and 16th centuries, secured by the Ottoman Turks. A reform group within the empire was born–the Young Turks sought to create a constitution in the face of authoritarianism (Suny, 2026). Armenians were welcomed under this movement, yet suspicion grew towards the people as Young Turks blamed them for collaborating with foreign powers (Suny, 2026).
Joining Germany and Austro-Hungary, the Young Turks sought to recruit Armenian forces as World War 1 began in the summer of 1914. Eastern Anatolia straddled the Russian-Ottoman front, and as the Armenian population was spread across the region, both the Russians and Turks attempted to recruit the leading Armenian political party (Suny, 2026). The Armenians remained loyal to the Russian division. The Young Turk government saw this as an act of treachery, and blamed Armenian betrayal when the Ottoman Empire suffered their worst defeat in 1915 (Suny, 2026). Mass killings were conducted in Armenian villages near Russian borders. “Desert marches” led Armenian civilians from their homes, past the valleys and mountains of Eastern Anatolia, into desolate concentration camps (Suny, 2026). Calculated estimates state that some 600,000 to 1 million Armenians were killed or died of starvation within the marches. When World War 1 ended, more than 90% of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire were gone (Suny, 2026).
Although most historians confirm that the Armenian massacres fit the definition of genocide, Turkey has steadily refused to recognize the events of 1915-16 as such. The government maintains that the Armenians were a rebellious population that had to be silenced during a national security crisis (Suny, 2026). Turkish powers viewed Armenia as a significant other, blaming their autonomous political affiliations for the empire’s general loss. Armenians became threatening once the boundaries of the Empire were challenged and needed support. Triandafyllidou explains these dynamics, stating that dominant groups view the internal significant other as a source of contamination (Triandafyllidou, 1998, p. 603). This outlook, combined with political power, can amplify into horrifying events such as genocide. Armenians remain committed to having the killings acknowledged–much of their identity has been built off the absence of this erased history. Yerevant Pamboukian, a teacher and former editor of Aztag (an Armenian newspaper), claims responsibility toward her country:
A great weight was put on us, to secure the rebirth of the nation. It gave us strength as the nation was going to be reconstructed by the children of the survivors of the genocide, the generations of those whose lives were worn out in the orphanages (Tchilingirian, 2018).
3.) Known as the oldest conflict within the former Soviet Union, ownership over the Nagorno Karabakh region has been argued since the 1920s. Azerbaijan and Armenia both identify with the land which houses a population of 150,000 and spans over 4288 sq. km (Tchilingirian, 2014, p. 475). Even though it was a historically Armenian district, the Nagorno Karabakh region was dealt to Azerbaijan when both countries were under Soviet rule (Suny et al., 2026). The conflict escalated into a full-blown war in 1991–Armenia claimed historic ties, while Azerbaijan claimed the region was within their national territory. The conflict continued well into the 21st century despite a ceasefire that was established in 1994 (Tchilingirian, 2014, p. 475).
Heavier fighting began again in late 2020, characterized by a lightning occupation conducted by Azerbaijan. Almost all of Karabakh’s population fled to Armenia within a week as 100,000 people were faced with the new Azerbaijan rule (Council on Foreign Relations, 2020). Though cultural tensions remain, both governments negotiated a peace deal in the white house in 2025, declaring both nations were prepared to end the nearly forty-year conflict (CFR, 2020).
Though individual states were not officially “erased”, both Azerbaijan and Armenia counted as minority nations under the USSR. Being opponents within the regime, they fit under the third category of internal significant others within Triandafyllidou’s reasoning (Triandafyllidou, 1998, p. 602). Azerbaijan and Armenia competed for resources available from the centralized state for almost 40 years. One side claimed territorial rights, while the other claimed the land culturally, which are both justifications given in Triandafyllidou’s writing (Triandafyllidou, 1998, p. 602). Due to Azerbaijan's invasion, Armenia was forced to reconstruct identity outside of territorial bounds. Instability once again called for the national unification of Armenia.
Without the perceived threats of other countries, the internal characteristics of national identity have no background to contrast against. Russia and Azerbaijan have significantly influenced Armenian development by being framed as the “other”. The Armenian language, the Apostolic church, and the resilient qualities of the citizens have historically been made authentic from the outside in.
Word count: 1,320
References:
Council on Foreign Relations. (2020, Jul 27). Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/nagorno-karabakh-conflict
Pisowicz, A. (2025, Aug 12). Armenian language. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Armenian-language
Suny, R.G., Dowsett, C.J.F., Mints, A.A., Howe, G.M. (2026, January 22). Armenia. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/place/Armenia?
Suny, R.G. (2026, January 16). Armenian Genocide. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Armenian-Genocide
Tchilingirian, H. (2014). The Armenian Apostolic Church (post-Soviet era). In L. Leustean (Ed.), Eastern Christianity and politics in the twenty-first century. Routledge. https://www.academia.edu/7374921/Hratch_Tchiligirian_The_Armenian_Apostolic_Church_post_Soviet_era
Tchilingirian, H. (2018, Feb 16). What is “Armenian” in Armenian identity? EVN Report. https://evnreport.com/raw-unfiltered/what-is-armenian-in-armenian-identity/
Triandafyllidou, A. (1998). National identity and the `other’. Ethnic & Racial Studies, vol 21, 593-612.http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewervid=6&sid83ce26fd-20ec-48a1-b912-097169094209%40sdc-v-sessmgr03
van Lint, T. M. (2009). The Formation of Armenian Identity in the First Millenium. Church History and Religious Culture, 89(1/3), 251–278. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23932290
