UCLA

In my doctoral research, I focus on the formation and development of the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses in post-Soviet Armenia. The main research question has two parts. 1) What accounts for changing state policies towards JWs in post-Soviet Armenian and for particular public intolerance towards JWs compared to other religious minorities? 2) What personal, social, institutional, cultural, and contingency factors affected one’s decision to become a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ community or to leave it? I answer these questions based on the materials collected during my intermittent field work in Armenia from 2016 until 2022 in the Russian, Armenian, and English congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Yerevan as well as other towns in Armenia. The data include hundreds of interviews with Jehovah’s Witnesses, state officials, journalists, anti-Jehovah’s Witnesses activists, non- Jehovah’s Witness Armenians, and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church. I also draw on statistical information, media, and reports generated by international NGOs and governmental organizations about post-Soviet Armenia.As one of the most controversial and contentious religious groups of the last hundred years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been persecuted in democratic Christian-majority countries and in totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Academic literature identifies the Armenian Church as the main driver of religious antagonism in post-Soviet Armenia (Kharatyan 2007; Lusyan 2011; Namoradze 2008), while the Armenian state is portrayed as a protector of the Armenian Church that does not have its own agenda in the religious field. Yet, a closer examination reveals that Armenian political elites chose to support the Armenian Church only when it corresponded to their political and ideological interests. My analysis strongly suggests that while the dominant national Church plays a significant role in shaping religious freedom in Armenia, it is a directed rather than a directing power. Throughout the post-Soviet period, the policies of the Armenian state towards Jehovah’s Witnesses have been inconsistent. In the media and everyday discourse, Jehovah’s Witnesses were described as the traitors of the Motherland seeking to destroy the Armenian nation. Because of their conspicuous public proselytism, Jehovah’s Witnesses were singled out as the most “harmful” non-traditional religious group in Armenia. The animosity towards Jehovah’s Witnesses quickly turned into a self-perpetuating cycle that required little external support. Individual state officials used the power of their office to push back against what they perceived as a threat to the country and nation. The overall liberalization of religious policies in Armenia has been contingent upon Armenia’s relationship with the European Union. There are multiple incentives for people in Armenia to join the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ community, such as a relatively egalitarian distribution of religious power at the level of the congregation, an alternative ideological message, a close-knit community, a clear guide for those who seek moral improvement, and moral empowerment for women to counter patriarchy and low social status. The most significant factor has been that of deprivation. Widely understood as one’s insufficient embeddedness or involvement in society, deprivation causes low social status and limits economic opportunities, as well as entails a lack of respect and social interaction. The fluctuation in the intensity of deprivation serves as a good explanation for the dynamic of the growth in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ community in post-Soviet Armenia.