Since the mid-1990s, Armenia has been dominated politically and economically by an oligarchy. While the figures who form this oligarchy are known as corrupt and brutal in their use of force in governing, their power also depends on intimate, kin-based, clientelist connections to the body politic. I argue that these forms of intimacy—the sharing of cultural values of proper Armenian governance—are established not only on patriarchy in the form of paternalism (political Fatherhood), but fraternal solidarities (political brotherhood) as well. Political patriarchy, thus, is a hierarchical yet horizontal formation of a multiplicity of men. While breaking with what is understood as a proper Armenian morality limits the sovereignty of figures who are seen as no longer legitimate to rule, sovereign power also depends on the brutal force necessary to vie for power among a fraternal horde.
AbrahamianL (2006) Armenian Identity in a Changing World. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers.
2.
AciksozSC (2020) Sacrificial Limbs: Masculinity, Disability, and Political Violence in Turkey. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3.
AliyevH (2014) Civil society in the South Caucasus: Kinship networks as obstacles to civil participation. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies14: 263–282.
4.
BayartJ-F (2009) The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly. Cambridge: Polity Press.
5.
BornemanJ (2004) Introduction: Theorizing regime ends. In: BornemanJ (ed.) Death of the Father: An Anthropology of End in Political Authority. New York: Berghahn Books, 1–32.
6.
De MariaB (2008) Neo-colonialism through measurement: A critique of the corruption perception index. Critical Perspectives on International Business4: 184–202.
7.
De WaalT (2013) Introduction. In: De WaalT (ed.) The Stalin Puzzle: Deciphering Post-Soviet Public Opinion. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, pp. 3–5.
8.
DelaneyC (1991) The Seed and the Soil: Gender and Cosmology in Turkish Village Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
9.
FergusonJ (2006) Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
10.
FreudS (1919) Totem and Taboo (Translated by BrillAbraham Arden). London: George Routledge & Sons.
11.
FreudS (1939) Moses and Monotheism. Hertfordshire: Garden City Press Limited.
12.
FreudS (2003[1919]) The uncanny. In: HaughtonH (ed.) The Uncanny. New York: Penguin Classics, 121–161.
13.
HarrisonG (2006) Neo-liberalism and the persistence of clientelism in Africa. In: RobisonR (ed.) The Neo-Liberal Revolution: Forging the Market State. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 98–113.
14.
HerzfeldM (1997) Cultural Intimacy: Social Poetics in the Nation-State. New York: Routledge.
15.
HoogasianVSMatossianMK (1982) Armenian Village Life before 1914. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
16.
HumphreyC (1991) “Icebergs,” Barter, and the mafia in provincial Russia. Anthropology Today7: 8–13.
17.
IshkanianA (2000) Gender and NGOs in post-soviet Armenia. Gender and NGOs in Post-Soviet Armenia18: 17–22.
18.
IshkanianA (2008) Democracy Building and Civil Society in Post-Soviet Armenia. New York: Routledge.
19.
JamesEC (2010) Democratic Insecurities: Violence, Trauma, and Intervention in Haiti. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
20.
JeffreyC (2002) Caste, class, and clientelism: A political economy of everyday corruption in rural North India. Economic Geography78(1): 21–41.
21.
KaganovskyL (2008) How the Soviet Man Was Unmade: Cultural Fantasy and Male Subjectivity Under Stalin. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
22.
KideckelDA (2004) The undead: Nicolae Ceausescu and paternalist politics in Romanian society and culture. In: BornemanJ (ed.) Death of the Father: An Anthropology of the End in Political Authority. New York: Berghahn Books, 123–147.
23.
KlumbyteN (2011) Political intimacy: Power, laughter, and coexistence in late Soviet Lithuania. East European Politics and Societies25: 658–677.
24.
LacanJ (2013) On the Names-Of-The-Father. Cambridge: Polity Press.
25.
LedenevaAV (2006) How Russia Really Works: The Informal Practices that Shapes Post-Soviet Business. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
26.
LuzbetakLJ (1951) Marriage and the Family in Caucasia. Vienna: St. Gabriel’s Mission Press.
27.
MbembeA (1992) The banality of power and the aesthetics of vulgarity in the postcolony. Public Culture4: 1–30.
28.
MbembeA (2019) Necropolitics (Translated by CorcoranSteven). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
29.
OzyurekE (2004) Miniaturizing Ataturk: Privatization of state imagery and ideology in Turkey. American Ethnologist31: 374–391.
30.
OzyurekE (2006) Nostalgia for the Modern: State Secularism and Everyday Politics in Turkey. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
31.
PatemanC (1988) The Sexual Contract. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
32.
PhillipsKD (2010) Pater rules best: Political kinship and party politics in Tanzania’s presidential elections. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review33: 109–132.
33.
RileyEJ (2019) The Politics of Teranga: Gender, Hospitality, and Power in Senegal. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review42(1): 110–124.
34.
SchneiderJSchneiderP (2005) Mafia, antimafia, and the plural cultures of Sicily. Current Anthropology46(4): 501–520.
35.
ShirinianT (2018a) A room of one’s own: Woman’s desire and queer domesticity in the republic. Armenian Review56: 60–90.
36.
ShirinianT (2018b) The nation-family: Intimate encounters and genealogical perversion in Armenia. American Ethnologist45(1): 48–59.
37.
ShirinianT (Forthcoming) Political patriarchy: Gendered hierarchies, paternalism, and public space in Armenia’s “Velvet Revolution.” In: BroersLOhanyanA (eds) Armenia’s Velvet Revolution: Authoritarian Decline and Civil Resistance in a Multipolar World. London: I.B. Tauris.
38.
VerderyK (1996) What Was Socialism, and What Comes Next?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
WedeenL (1999) Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric, and Symbols. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40.
WoodcockS (2007) The absence of Albanian jokes about socialism, or why some dictatorships are not funny. In: HamiltonCNoonanWKellyM, et al. (eds) The Politics and Aesthetics of Refusal. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press, 51–66.
