Sociologist: Location, generation, and risk perception shape distinct  modes of discourse in political dialogue in Armenia`s regions

ArmInfo.Different regions of Armenia are developing their own ecology of political  communication, where location, generation, and risk perception jointly determine the characteristics of discourse in political dialogue, as stated by Harutyun Vermishyan, Theory and History of Sociology Chair head, PhD in Sociology, and Associate Professor,  during a discussion titled "Ahead of 2026 Parliamentary Elections: Peace and Security Factor in  Election Campaign."

He presented the results of a study titled "Political Dialogues,"  conducted in partnership with the Yerevan Caucasus Institute and  covering three regions of Armenia: Gyumri, Yeghegnadzor, and Goris.  As Vermishyan noted, this isn't just sociological data, but  sociological reflection within the framework of an experimental  project, allowing for a deeper understanding of how the political  agenda is perceived in various regions of the country. The study  provided an opportunity to analyze how Armenia's political order is  shaped across generations and in various contexts.

"The discussions touched on current topics-foreign policy, the peace  process, and the agenda for the 2026 parliamentary elections in  Armenia. It was important to emphasize that this was a discussion of  political issues, not a politicized event. As a result, we concluded  that people shape their speech to sound convincing to others or,  conversely, prefer to remain silent, fearing that their words will be  held accountable. It was interesting to observe who speaks and who  remains silent during these discussions, which allowed us to  understand citizens' receptivity to political topics. For example,  experts recorded audience reactions to terms such as security,  corridor, peace, and TRIPP (Trump's route - ed.)," Vermishyan said. 

In Gyumri, discussions were held with representatives of local  government, civil society organizations, political clubs, activists,  and students. According to the sociologist, the audience acted not  only as listeners but also as active participants in the discussion,  asking questions and even changing the direction of the debate. "From  a methodological perspective, this is very important, as it  demonstrates that people have a voice-they're not just an audience,  but co-authors of the discussion. In Gyumri, it was also interesting  to observe the use of irony and sarcasm in speech, which demonstrated  a critical approach to official discourse. People used humor to test  the veracity of statements. For example, when discussing TRIPP, the  audience might ironically refer to it as Trump Trip, where irony  became a mechanism for local control. It's also worth noting that  distrust of sociological surveys became a key topic of discussion;  this isn't just a problem with the surveys themselves, but also a  matter of the legitimacy of the expert system in Armenia," the  sociologist explained.  In Yeghegnadzor, the expert noted, the  discussions were primarily with teenagers and only a small number  with adults, making the meeting perceived more as a form of  education. The sociologist noted that the audience initially remained  silent, perceiving the political question as "the world of adults"  and viewing the experts as knowledge holders. "From a methodological  perspective, this is significant for the audience we selected in  Yeghegnadzor, since in their case, political agency is still in its  infancy. Peace in this audience was associated with three themes:  defeat, historical justice, and dignity. This demonstrates that for  them, peace is a category of moral values. And here I usually note  that when a teenager asks a political question, they may not have a  political toolbox, but they possess strong moral sensors that need to  be transformed into civic thinking and tools," Vermishyan emphasized.

In Goris, the target audience was university and college students, as  well as young activists. According to the sociologist, the meeting in  Goris can be characterized by the principle of silence and risk  management.  Vermishyan explained that the meeting was held under a  strong "security filter." According to him, silence in Goris is not a  sign of a lack of information; on the contrary, from a sociological  perspective, it also represents data.

"From a methodological perspective, silence is a part of speech, not  a gap. And since Goris is a risky environment, a question can be  perceived as an expression of opinion, meaning that political speech  here is no longer a means of exchanging opinions. In other words, the  principle at work here is "think about the value of your voice,"  which made the discussions more practical. Here, they talked more  about strategies for buying time within the global agenda and  changing language-that is, using the words "enemy" or "adversary."  Thus, silence in Goris is not a lack of information, as I already  said, but information itself," Vermishyan clarified. In conclusion,  the sociologist noted that political agency is unevenly distributed  across the regions in terms of space and generation. "In Gyumri, we  saw a well-established, critical and debating agency; in Goris, an  informed but risk-averse agency; in Yeghegnadzor, agency is still in  its infancy. In other words, we see a specific ecology of political  communication, where place, generation, and risk perception combine  to shape discourse. Meanwhile, if we consider the peace agenda  separately, in Gyumri, peace is a competition of political models; in  Yeghegnadzor, it's a question of dignity and justice; and in Goris,  it's a question of survival and security," the expert noted.

According to Vermishyan, it means  that communication about peace  cannot occur in the same context in three different regions, as  people perceive the same concept through the prism of different  risks. "Thus, through these visits, we have uncovered not a map of  specific positions, but the local mechanics of political discourse,"  the sociologist concluded.