Tweet
WE ARE NOT REACHING AFTER THE SYSTEMS
Siranuysh Papyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview26452.html
Published: 13:42:16 - 06/06/2012
Interview with Movses Demirchyan, Candidate of Philosophical sciences
Movses, what is the post-election situation? All the political
actors are in the parliament, but there is still no expectation of
qualitative changes.
It is wrong to say that the parliamentary election reported no changes,
they are just ambiguous. First, all the main actors really appeared in
the parliament and it is good, but on the other hand from the point of
the voters, I think, we have regressed because there was no possibility
for the voters to make a choice because the campaign was full of
gossip and criticism. Nevertheless, the parliamentary elections have
reached an important achievement: the ideological fight has not been
transferred to the National Assembly which is now a bit apolitical.
Movses, the society also seems to be a little apolitical. What is
the situation there?
There is an important thing here which is not spoken about but it
is necessary to speak about it since it is the axis of the public
processes. The important is not the fact that how it is interpreted.
The civil society is an institute that in philosophical sense
interprets uniquely the public phenomena. It is one thing when
you say that the Yerevan marketplace is illegally dismantled and
it is different when you say that it is exhausted and needs to be
destroyed for a new one to be built instead. It is evident that the
civil initiatives interpret public processes unilaterally. The events
regarding the Market, the Mashtots Park and the homosexuals issues
are interpreted unilaterally.
In case of Mashtots Park the issue was concrete: public territory
must be returned to the public.
It is necessary to remember that the fact is not important, people
always deal with the interpretation of the fact. We have no civil
initiative in the large sense of the word and the civil initiatives
are not a proof to the completion of the society because civil
society means a variety of opinions and tolerance to this variety. We
have only attempts to present the unilateral interpretation as the
only truth. This is a model that splits the society. We have an
informational, analytical field issue because any fact needs to be
interpreted from different positions. The basis of the civil society
is the art of interpretation. It is senseless to fight homosexuals
in Armenia, it is necessary to find a proper interpretation of
this phenomenon to make the society accept it. Unless it is found,
this phenomenon will be considered illegitimate. If we want a civil
society, we need to interpret the facts so as many facts could fit
into the conscience. This is a profession which we don't have.
There is civil activeness and it is enlarging. This activeness
should be directed to the professionalism of interpretation of the
facts. The actions of those who criticize the homosexuals don't
stem from patriotism and humanism, or the wish to defend the type of
Armenians, but their stereotypes, archaic ideas and conscience. In
case of such interpretation, the things will become comprehensible
and we will understand that the atheist and homosexuals are ordinary
people and it is not our business what they do at home.
Siranuysh Papyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview26452.html
Published: 13:42:16 - 06/06/2012
Interview with Movses Demirchyan, Candidate of Philosophical sciences
Movses, what is the post-election situation? All the political
actors are in the parliament, but there is still no expectation of
qualitative changes.
It is wrong to say that the parliamentary election reported no changes,
they are just ambiguous. First, all the main actors really appeared in
the parliament and it is good, but on the other hand from the point of
the voters, I think, we have regressed because there was no possibility
for the voters to make a choice because the campaign was full of
gossip and criticism. Nevertheless, the parliamentary elections have
reached an important achievement: the ideological fight has not been
transferred to the National Assembly which is now a bit apolitical.
Movses, the society also seems to be a little apolitical. What is
the situation there?
There is an important thing here which is not spoken about but it
is necessary to speak about it since it is the axis of the public
processes. The important is not the fact that how it is interpreted.
The civil society is an institute that in philosophical sense
interprets uniquely the public phenomena. It is one thing when
you say that the Yerevan marketplace is illegally dismantled and
it is different when you say that it is exhausted and needs to be
destroyed for a new one to be built instead. It is evident that the
civil initiatives interpret public processes unilaterally. The events
regarding the Market, the Mashtots Park and the homosexuals issues
are interpreted unilaterally.
In case of Mashtots Park the issue was concrete: public territory
must be returned to the public.
It is necessary to remember that the fact is not important, people
always deal with the interpretation of the fact. We have no civil
initiative in the large sense of the word and the civil initiatives
are not a proof to the completion of the society because civil
society means a variety of opinions and tolerance to this variety. We
have only attempts to present the unilateral interpretation as the
only truth. This is a model that splits the society. We have an
informational, analytical field issue because any fact needs to be
interpreted from different positions. The basis of the civil society
is the art of interpretation. It is senseless to fight homosexuals
in Armenia, it is necessary to find a proper interpretation of
this phenomenon to make the society accept it. Unless it is found,
this phenomenon will be considered illegitimate. If we want a civil
society, we need to interpret the facts so as many facts could fit
into the conscience. This is a profession which we don't have.
There is civil activeness and it is enlarging. This activeness
should be directed to the professionalism of interpretation of the
facts. The actions of those who criticize the homosexuals don't
stem from patriotism and humanism, or the wish to defend the type of
Armenians, but their stereotypes, archaic ideas and conscience. In
case of such interpretation, the things will become comprehensible
and we will understand that the atheist and homosexuals are ordinary
people and it is not our business what they do at home.