Özet:

Both practice and language are very crucial in in the perpetuation of dominant discourse. In order to impose the preferred meaning to the population, binary oppositions should be created. These oppositions aim to construct identities on the basis of “us vs them”. Binary oppositions have also played a crucial rule in Armenian national identity construction. The representations of mythology, land pretensions (Great Armenia Project) and Armenian Genocide ignited Turkish hostility in practice starting from 19th century. In identity construction, two discursive shifts happened after the establishment of Armenian statehood. The first shift appeared during the first president- Ter-Petrosian’s period who tried to minimize Turkish otherness in order to create good economic relation with Turkey by excluding the primordial elements of identity construction. With the new presidential period of Robert Kocharian, the second discursive shift occurred in national identity construction by combining both primordial and civic elements. Turkish Otherness again re-emerged through the new discourse of victimization. The new discourse’s main representation was Armenian Genocide which targeted Turkey as the Other not only in the minds of people, but also in the foreign policy of the country. To include again Armenian genocide to political agenda, and recognition of Armenian genocide in the foreign policy was the primary aim of new discourse. Considering the historical facts and discursive shifts, I aim to analyze how Turkish otherness have played an important role in Armenian nation-building and how the new discourse of victimization emerged and started to represent Armenian foreign policy by targeting Turkey as the other during the presidential period of Robert Kocharian.

Anahtar Kelimeler: