Talk:Sophie Areshian

Anarchist?

@Aristoxène, Areshian is categorized in the article as an Amenian anarchist but no source is included for that claim and the other language Wikipedias do not categorize her as such. Which reliable sources describe her as an anarchist? czar 21:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Czar Good evening, I’m replying here and I’ll start by apologizing for not yet responding on the other page. I tend to be cyclical and want to create new pages, so I move on to something else and take my time—sorry about that. Regarding Areshian, this is a question I’ve asked myself, and perhaps @Grnrchst insights can help us here, as with my former account, AgisdeSparte, we did some work on Alexander Atabekian together, so I believe this person could assist us.

As for Areshian, I used the same categories available on Mikaelian’s page because, given that he is clearly the predominant influence on Areshian’s political formation, it didn’t seem unreasonable. However, if we go back to the source, we encounter the same issue with Mikaelian: was he really an anarchist? I think the root of this problem lies with the ARF. Essentially, this organization, founded in the 1890s, seems to have highly variable positions depending on its members.

Between 1890 and 1915, it’s undoubtedly a mix of far-left ideas and anti-colonialism (later, following the genocide and especially the Soviet invasion of Armenia, the party became anti-communist and, in many ways, right-wing nationalist - which is not unusual for the evolution of far left anticolonial parties, probably). But there are definite trends. In this case, labeling Mikaelian as an anarchist didn't completely seem a mistake—and this likely extends to Areshian as well.

For instance, Mikaelian primarily built networks with anarchists. He appointed Quillard (a friend of Reclus) as the organization’s Western spokesperson, collaborated with Joris and Nellens, and sourced most of the organization’s weapons from Naum Tyufekchiev. These are the general observations. As for specific sources, an entire chapter in Alloul’s work, which I’ve referenced extensively in the article (the book, not the chapter), addresses the question of anarchism and explicitly connects the attempted bombing to anarchism, particularly through the influence of propaganda by deed and ideological influence on the ARF during this period. This chapter is titled The Ottoman War on ‘Anarchism’ and Revolutionary Violence and spans pages 99 to 128 of the book. Furthermore, the attempted attack was explicitly categorized as anarchist by the Ottoman Empire (in fact the Ottoman Empire considered even talking about the 'Armenian Question' as anarchistm - linking the two fights together, a connection that was clearly made by Mikaelian at some extent too, seing his links with anarchists) I’ll send some screenshots of the relevant chapter to illustrate this.(1)(2)(3) Axel Corlu kinda looks towards the same direction, and explicitely speaks about the ARF + Mikaelian + Yildiz attempt in his article about anarchism in the Ottoman Empire, that he published in the book 'History from Below', but it is avalaible freely online. He says :

The reasons for this specialized attention are not difficult to fathom: state oppression and Armenian uprisings with disastrous results had become a fixture of the second half of the nineteenth century in Ottoman lands, especially in Asia Minor. The 1915–16 genocide at the hands of the Union and Progress leadership proved to be merely the tragic ending to a decades-old struggle. Thus, the emphasis on Armenian in “Armenian anarchist” was probably the reason for this inflated number of reports, even though Armenian anarchists certainly “deserved” some of the attention through their activities such as the 1896 Ottoman Bank takeover in Constantinople, led by members of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF, also known as Dashnaksutyun), not to mention the assassination attempt on Abdülhamid II.

So I feel like it's best to see what you two think about that, but those are the ideas that came into my mind before chosing to keep that category.

I’m not saying they must be categorized as anarchists, but it seemed reasonable to do so, given that Mikaelian already had these categories. I had tried to provide a historical analysis of the ARF’s anarchist tendencies on the ARF page, but it was gatekept by a contributor who didn’t want to hear about it—I think; I don’t quite remember. In any case, there is academic literature on this topic and should be dwelved into a bit. What do you think? Aristoxène (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I just remembered that there’s also a chapter in the book that explores Joris’s perspective (it really is a great book! lol). In this chapter, the author revisits the ideological proximity between anarchism and smaller anti-colonial movements of the period—a proximity that was notably stronger than that of Marxists at the same time. It's called - 'Edward Joris : Caught Between Continents and Ideologies ?' and the points made by the author are that not, he wasn't contradicting himself and it was a struggle that was linked ideologically. At least, that’s what this chapter seems to suggest in my opinion.(1)(2)(3)

Also, I remember reading somewhere that Zavarian, one of the three founders of the ARF, was full blown anarchist communist and was very Bakuninist, but I have no source about that and it should be researched, maybe @Grnrchst knows more about that. There is also the quote when I improved the page of Quillard, I found one of his publications and he is speaking at a conference he is organizing to recolt funds and support for the ARF and he says (this is the spokesperson of the ARF in the West) : 'This situation is, in reality, common to all of Turkey, as it is general causes that create among all populations in Turkey an anarchist or revolutionary state of mind that is nothing but the natural resistance of human beings defending their property and their lives. They defend their property against the Turkish regime and their lives against the Hamidian regime.' (This was 2 years before the Yildiz attempt, and he participated (he was seemingly able to participate in their congresses) in the events leading to the choice of that strategy, which he found a 'bit extreme') Aristoxène (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)