ARMENIAN MIGRATION, SETTLEMENT AND ADJUSTMENT IN AUSTRALIA WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE · TO THE IN SYDNEY

by

James Ray Kirkland

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Research School of Social Sciences of the· Australian National University

March 1980 -244-

CHAPTER VI

MAINTENANCE OF ARMENIAN IDENTITY AND ETHNICITY IN AUSTRALIA

- INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS

Most research on ethnic identity and ethnicity has been concerned not with its maintenance but with the patterns of its demise (Fishman, 1966d: 21). This is directly attributable to the attitude of earlier years that ethnic groups would always eventually die out. Thus, the emphasis was on how they disappeared rather than on how they managed to persist (Glazer and Moynihan, 1975b: 5).

In Australia, st:udies qf ethnic identity have been made largely by social-psychologists, with the main emphasis being on how immigrants shed their ethnic identity anq .come to identify with Australian society· (Johnston, 1963; Phillips, 1968; Richardson, 1957; 1974; Taft, 1965). The underlying ·premise of most of these studies was that, over time, immigrants would eventually cease identifying with their ethnic groups and commence to identify with the greater Australian society at which stage they were con­ sidered to be "psychologi!:!ally ass:f.milated".

More recent research, especially in the United States (Glazer and. Moynihan, 1975), has drawn attention to the persistence, or even resurgence, of ethnic group identity and to the means by which this is accomplished. It is now common to speak of "plural ·societies" where different ethnic groups maintain their separate ethnicities, while at the same time they are "integrated" into the larger society. With this idea of plural societies

has also come the recogn~tion that individuals may identify simultaneously, and·without conflict, with their ethnic group and with the larger society. In Australia, the Jews are a good example of one such group which exhibits this "dual loyalty" (Encel et at.~ 1972; Medding, 1973a: 256-257; 1973b: 10). -245-

For first generation immigrants, who are considered one variety of ethnic group (Price, 19·63: 222), maintenance of individual ethnic identity and .of the group's ethnicity can be very important aspects of their adjust­ ment· process in the host country. Often such maintenance is necessary in order for them to receive the social and psychological support from fellow immigrants which is so vital to their initial adjustment. Moreover, the continuity with the past wh.ich their ethnic identity provides also furnishes them with the confidence they need to meet the challenges of their new environment.

Ethnic identity maintenance has another commonly recognized side to it. It is often felt to inhibit or slow down the immigrants' assimilation into the host society since it serves to maintain ethnic differences. Although, in general, this is probably so ...... especially for second and sub­ sequent generations - it does not necessarily pPevent the successful adjust- ment or integration of immigrants into the host society. In fact, as mentioned above, it may actually serve as. a positive force in the adjustment process.1

The aimof this chapter is to examine the means by which the Armenian immigrants have striven to keep their ethnic identity since arrival in Australia and the provisions which they are making to ensure its continu- ation in their children. Before entering into this discussion, however, it - is first necessary to define as precisely as possible the concepts of "ethnic identity" and "ethnicity" as they are used here.

The term ethnic has been applied to a range of population aggregates,2

1 A good example is provided by Smolicz and Harris (1977: 89) for the Polish immigrants in Australia. They found that "the preservation (and even development) of ethnicity, and assimilation to the ways of Anglo-Australian society, need not be mutually exclusive.. The two processes are not intrin­ sically incompatible and can proceed alongside each other". 2 Martin (19i2a:l0) used ethnic to refer to overseas-born in Australia. Price (1963: 3), although dealing primarily with immigrants, used it in ·a muc:h broader sense to mean "a collection of persons who, for physical, geographical, political, religious, linguistic or other reasons, feel themselves, or are felt by others to constitute a separate people". This usage is mucl;l more common in the literature. For example, Gordon (1964: 24) saw "ethnic" as referring to "shared feelings of peoplehood", while Parsons (1975: 56) equated itwith a "distinct identity which is rooted in some kind of .distinctive sense of history". -246-

generally in reference to identifiable sub-populations within the overall population. In some cases the members of these sub-populations have no more than the distinguishing criterion or criteria in connnon and do not regularly interact with each other on the basis of these criteria. These are often ter:med ethnic "categories" or "groupings" and are not considered to be distinctly bounded entities. In other cases, where the distinguishing criteria form the basis for social interaction among members of ethnic cate- gories, ethnic "groups" are formed. These are generally considered "bounded" entities.

The distinction between ethnic categories and ethnic groups is analogous to that between ''ethnic identity" and "ethnicity". The former refers to an individual's recognition that he possesses certain distinguish- ing criteria which place him in a particular sub-population. 1 When he interacts with other members of his ethnic category in an ethnic group there develops a collective group identity, or ethnicity.2

Not all ethnic categories develop into ethnic groups, although the potential is always there. This is well illustrated by cases in the United States where interest groups have recently developed from dormant ethnic categories. Moreover, when ethnic groups do develop, they do not necessar- ily include all members of the ethnic category. For individuals, there is

a "continuum of ethriicity" from those who take no part in their ethnic ~roup,

and are more or less fully integrated into the larger society, to thos~ who participate fully in their ethnic group. For the latter individuals, their participation.has important socio-psychological concomitants and consequences, since not only does it constitute part of their sense of ethnic identity but it also serves to engage an important segment of their loyalties and social connnitments. When compared with the former, these innnigrants are considered to have "high ethnicity".

1 . As defined by Glazer (1958: 31), ethnic identification refers to a person's use of social, national or religious terms to "identify himself, and .thereby, to relate himself to others". · 2 Parsons (1975: 53) describes "ethnicity" as an extraordinary elusive concept and very difficult to define in any precise way, He does state, however, that "what we call ethnicity is a primary focus of group identity". Other discussions of ethnicity as a concept are found in Cohen (1974a), Watson (1977b: 8-11) and Glaz~r and Moynihan (1975b: 1-26). · -247-

Ethnic categories may survive almost indefinitely, depending upon i the particular distinguishing criteria. Ethnic groups, however, only survive : I as long as interaction takes place among their members and their ethnicity is strong enough to bound the groups and ensure that they remain separate entities. I

The boundaries of·ethnic groups may be only social or they may be both social and biological~ In most cases the continued survival of the group as a 'distinct entity is more dependent upon the. former than the latter.! For example, some of the ethnic groups which have survived for millenia have been those whose biological elements have changed considerably but whose culture has largely continued intact• The best example here are the Jewish. people. Nevertheless, the combination of social and biological boundaries, as provided by endogamous marriages, must be considered to contribute greatly to the distinctiveness of the ethnic group and to enhance its survival.

THE BASIS FOR A UNIQUE ·ARMENIAN IDENTITY AND ITS PRESERVATION

The historical development of Armenian identity has already been described in detail in Chapter Two. To reiterate the main points, basic Armenian identity consists of three components: an historical memory which stretches back three thousand years; a "national" religion (Armenian Apostolic); a distinctive language. Very early in the history of the Armenian people this combination provided the unique cultural basis for a distinct ethnic identity. A fourth factor must also be considered crucial t.o the perpetuation of. Armenian identity throughout the centuries - the fact that the Armenians have existed primarily as a subject people or as minority · groups in larger societies. Like the Jews (Liffman, 1973: 129), such a situation has served to enhance their ethnicity by making them perceive the ways in which they differed from the dominant, or host cultures. In Ottoman times these differences were legitimated in the form of the Millet Sys.tem. Also, the periodic manifestations of anti-Armenianism by rulers or surrounding

1 Parsons (1975: 57) states that the most important general core of an ethnic group is a common auZture which has some feature of tempor.aZ continuity, often reaching into an indefinite past. In other words, it · is a "transgenerational type of group·". -248-

peoples further served to strengthen the institutions of the Armenians and helped to ensure the adherence of the individual Armenians to them.

Throughout most of the history of the Armenians and up to the nine­ teenth century their primary ethnic loyalty was centred on their village group, their city community or their locality. Nevertheless, the religious and linguisticdifferences between the Armenians and the surrounding peoples effectively served to keep them apart culturally and ensured that the group was perpetuated biologically through endogamy.

The events which followed the Armenian "Awakening" and which led to the resurgence of Armenian "national" identity also provided forces which. have served to perpetuate Armenian identity in the .worldwide Diaspora. Having survived the Turkish attempt to destroy th,em during the First World War, the Armenians were more determined than ever to continue as a distinct national group. This feeling was reinforced by the short period of Armenian independence following , which provided a focus for national aspirations that have persisted among many Armenians to the present day.

The period of Armenian independence also provided another legacy which is crucial to the perpetuation of Armenian ethnicity in the Diaspora today. This was the development of an internal political controversy. With the loss of independence in 1921 the seeds of this controversy were sown in the communities of the Diaspora, where they continued to grow, eventuating in a major rift both within these communities and within the Apostolic Church. Although this split has unquestionably had its negative side and has even given rise to open violence, it also has had a positive side with respect to the maintenance of Armenian identity by keeping alive interest in the Armenian heritage.

FACTORS RELATING TO DIFFeRENCES IN THE ETHNICITY OF SYDNEY ARMENIANS j '

As with any ethnic group the level of ethnicity of the individual r Sydney Armenians varies widely. Being Armenian is expressed in diverse ways, in varied and multiple patterns of cultural, religious and emotional involve­ ment and in different patterns of social and institutional affiliation and -249-

participation. There are also those who identify themselves as Armenian but take no part in the Armenian community. These differences in ethnicity are attributable to a number of interrelated factors: (1) their community, country and, specifically, region of origin; (2) their religion or church affiliat.ion; (3) whether or not they speak the ; (4) their involvement or non-involvement in the internal political controversy of the Armenian community; (5) whether or not they or their parents have married non-Armenians.

The major differences in ethnicity are associated with the different "national" backgrounds of these Armenians. The individual's attitude toward his .ethnic identity is influenced not only by the history, traditions and customs Qf his particular community of origin, but also by how he was treated by his non-Armenian countrymen.

It has been shown in Chapter Three that Armenians have national backgrounds which are substantially different. Those from the Arab lands were predomina]ltly Turkish refugee stock who had continued in a "Millet" type of relationship in 11\0St countries until after World War II. They main- . tained self-contained communities which consisted p·redominantly of members of the Apostolic Church. Endogamous marriages were almost universal, with strong pressures both from within as well as .from outside the community exerted to ensure that intermarriage did not take place. In addition, the members of these communities were strongly involved in internal Armenian politics.

Those who came from the non-Arab Middle East show similarities to the above as well as some significant differenc.es. The Armenians in both and were Christian minorities in Moslem countries and both had their own communities with schools, clubs, and so on. The Turkish Armenians, however, being the remnants of the once large Turkish Armenian population, tended to keep a low profile in their only remaining community in Istanbul. Although endogamous and predominantly Apostolic, they avoided any involvement in internal Armenian politics. The Armenians in Iran, on the other hand, occupied a favoured position in their country, especially .in the economic sphere, and had a completely different historical develoi>ment, as well as a -250-

much more congenial relationship with their Moslem countrymen. They were spared the catastrophic events which affected the Turkish Armenians and for this reason were predominantly apolitical.

The Armenians of Soviet were the only group which was not a minority population surrounded by non-Christians. Again, they were largely Apostolic and had a high rate of endogamy, but due to.suppression by the Communist regime, internal political controversy was almost nonexistent.

The Armenians from South, East and Southeast Asia, although originating mostly in Iran, were exposted to influences which have resulted in significant differences in their level of ethnicity. Almost all the communities in this region had developed during the colonial period when European powers controlled the various countries. Being Christian and working mainly in commerce, they came into contact and were associated with the European administrators and other members of the local European communities. This eventually led to a number of intermarriages as well as to a failure on the part of many to learn the Armenian language; many pre­ ferred to speak the European language of the colonial administration. Also, because they were far removed from the events of World War I, there was little knowledge of, or interest in, Armenian internal politics.

Those few Armenians who came from regions other than those described above had generally not resided in distinct Armenian communities and many had become well assimilated into their host societies. This was especially true for those who came from Europe and . For this reason, many had never learned to speak the Armenian language, had tended to join churches other than the Armenian Apostolic Church and had married non­ Armenians. Also, on the whole, most were unconcerned with the internal political controversy.

Thus, whether an Armenian immigrant speaks Armenian, married within the· group or is involved to some degree in the internal political controversy is largely a function of his community of origin. The fifth factor, religion, shows a slightly different pattern. Those who are Apostolics almost univer­ sally are fluent in the Armenian language, are usually endogamous and are generally involved to some degree in the internal political controversy. -251-

The exceptions to this are those who came from South, East and Southeast Asia. The Armenian Catholics, the next largest church group, often do not speak Armenian, are relatively exogamous and do not take an active interest in Armenian politics. This group can be considered. the least nationalistic of the Armenian church groups.

The members of the third church, the Armenian Evangelical Church, fall somewhere between these two.· Most members of this church in Australia speak Armenian, are endogamous and, usually, take some interest in the activities of the larger Apostolic community.

In summary, it is clear that a combination of factors must be taken into account with respect to the range of Armenian ethnicity exhibited in Australia, as well as the strength of an individual's ethnic identity. Nevertheless, it is possible t.o draw a distinction between those background characteristics which generally indicate "high" Armenian ethnicity ·as opposed to "low" Armenian ethnicity (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1

Characteristics Associated with Level of Armenian Ethnicity

Level of Ethnicity Characteristics

High Ar·ab Middle East Apostolic Church Endogamous Politically Involved Speak Armenian Medium Non-Arab Middle Eastl Evangelical Church Apolitical Speak Armenian Low Europe and North America South, Southeast, East Asia Other Countries Protestant, Armenian Catholics Exogamous Don't Speak Armenian Apolitical

1 Principally Soviet Armenia and Turkey. Iran could.be included in the High Ethnicity Category. -252-

MAINTENANCE OF ARMENIAN IDENTITY AND ETHNICITY IN AUSTRALIA: GENERAL

" [In] this age of massive migrations, for great numbers transported great physical and cultural distances, it [basic group identity] is the ark they carry with them, the temple of whatever rules one's forebears lived by, the 'tradition' or 'morality' or whatever form of creed or belief in a given set of answers to the unanswerables" (Isaacs, 1975: 35).

This statement is more applicable to Armenians today than to i:nost other immigrant ethnic groups, even the Jews. The Armenians' present situation in the Diaspora is very aptly given by Atamian (1955: 461):

"It must be remembered that centuries of oppression and persecution by one ruling power or another, the betrayal of Armenian aspirations by Europe, and the continued discrimination against any ethnic group coming fairly late into the scene of economic strife in different societies, have produced an important phenomenon: the Armenian, virtually, has nothing but his identity. Con­ sequently that identity tends to be guarded rather jealously - be it Dashnak or pro-Soviet in orientation. In this situation, Armenians seem to be aware that as a homeless minority (Soviet Armenians notwithstanding), they are rapidly facing ethnic or national extinction, either through overt oppression or assimilation".

·He goes on to state that "If the Armenian in the dispersion loses his identity in that dispersion, there are no other Armenians to perpetuate that identity because there is no Armenia" (Atamian, 1955: 461). Therefore, because most Armenians are committed to a life in dispersion, they are pre­ occupied with their ethnic survival.

For most Armenians, pride in their long and colourful history, as well as a feeling of injustice concerning the Turkish massacres and disper­ sions, inbues their sence of identity as Armenians with great emotional content. 1 In many ways they view the perpetuation of this identity in their l This feeling is intensified by the recognition that the world community is no longer interested in obtaining redress from the Turks for the wrongs they perpetuated against the Armenians in World War I. In fact, the Armenians are quick to point out that they were the first people to suffer an attempted genocide in the twentieth century and not the Jews - although it is the Jews who have received all the recognition and publicity, while the Armenian claims go unnoticed. Many, therefore, suffer from a deep sense of distrust and alientation towards the world community of nations (Dekmejian, 1976: 28). -253-

children as almost a scared trust. "Like the Jew, the burden of tradition weighs too heavily on the Armenian conscience. To escape that tradition, to shed a proud historical memory is not easy without experiencing feelings of guilt and anguish" (Dekmejian, 1976: 30).

Preservation of Armenian identity for those in Australia today and, presumably, for other Diaspora communities as well, is felt to depend largely on three factors: maintenance of the Armenian language, especially among the young; restriction of marriages to within the group; maintenance of Armenian historical consciousness, with emphasis on the events of the World War I period, and of its counterpart, the perpetuation of the "Armenian Cause" of an eventual free and independent Armenian homeland. The failure of any one of the three is seen by many as tantamount to the loss of identity which, if allowed to increase unchecked, would eventually lead to the destruction of the Armenian people as a distinct entity.

LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE AND LANGUAGE SHIFT AMONG THE SYDNEY ARMENIANS: GENERAL

"The study of language maintenance and language shift is concerned with the relationship between change or stability in habitual language use, on the one hand, and on-going psychological, social or cultural processes, on the other, when populations differing in language are in contact with each other" (Fishman, 1966b: 424).

These phenomena have been most commonly studied with regard to immigrant groupsin order to determine the speed with which they were assimil- ating into the host society. This is especially true in Australia where information on migrant language behaviour has generally been collected only in assimilation study surveys (Borrie, 1954; Johnston, 1965a; Martin, 1965; Taft, 1965; Zubrzycki, 1964a). There have been relatively few studies of the socio-linguistic aspects of post-war immigration done in Australia and comparatively little is known about the long-term fate of non-English languages. 1 However, lately, more interest has been shown specifically in this area of immigrant behaviour (Harvey, 1974; Smolicz and Harris, 1977).

1 Although a few researchers, such as Clyne (1971;1972) have studied various aspects of migrant language behaviour in Australia, the overall number of such studies has been small. Most work on migrant languages has been -254-

Language maintenance has generally been viewed as an attempt on the part of first generation immigrants to maintain some degree of continuity with their past, or, to maintain contact with the younger generation in the host country. This was especially true where the immigrants did not readily learn the host society language (Choi, 1970: 271-272). For most immigrant groups, language loyalty and maintenance are not considered to have become conscious goals until after migration (Fishman, 1966d: 27). With the sub- sequent generation, however, there was usually not the need to maintain con­ tinuity with the past, since children born in the host country did not share a common background with their parents. So radical a break in the life patterns between the first and second generations often made the personal and concrete experiences of the immigrant parents inaccessible to their children born in the host society. For the children, then, aspects of their ethnicity, such as use of the mother tongue, were open to evaluation, manip­ ulation or even repudiation at will, while for their parents they remained a functioning part of their everyday life (Nahirny and Fishman, 1965: 316). This generally meant that only the more recent arrivals tended to push the maintenance of the mother tongue, and language shift from the mother tongue to the dominant host society language accelerated with increased time in the host society. In most cases, by the third generation the mother tongue had ceased to play any significant role in the lives of the ethnic group members (Fishman and Nahirny, 1966a: 182-184; Nahirny and Fishman, 1966: 343).

Not all immigrant groups have suffered this "annihilation" of their mother tongue. There are those for whom the perpetuation of the mother tongue is viewed as necessary for the maintenance of the group's distinct boundaries and the overall survival of the group. In many cases the words of the language have become cultural symbols for the group and the language itself a prominent aspect of the group's cultural identity. Also, its use separates the group from the host society and at the same time provides a common bond for the group's members. This is especially true for those with a "diaspora consciousness", who have been concerned with language

1 (Cont 'd) concerned with the more practical side of language learning, as shown by the fact that in bibliographies of immigrant studies in Australia the section on languages is combined with that of adult education. See Price (197la: 30-32) and Price and Martin (1976: 29-31). -255-

maintenance in the past, whose mother tongue is related to a national ideology or whose language is intimately linked to a "national religion" (Fishman, 1966d: 27-28; Fishman and Nahirny, 1966a: 170; Glazer, 1966: 365).1

The Sydney Armenians, as a group, are distinguished by all of the above characteristics. The majority ar~ also quite recent arrivals. Con- sequently, it is not unnatural that they are very concerned with the main­ tenance of Armenian as a functional language and have made great efforts in this area. It should be noted, however, that a certain amount of "ancestral language shift" - language shift which occurred in earlier generations - had already taken place for a small fraction of the Sydney Armenians. This took place primarily in those areas of dispersion outside the Middle East and was predominantly language shift to the European languages in use in these areas, or to the language of the ruling class. 2 This shift was facilitated. by two factors, the relative longevity of the Armenian communities in these areas, when'compared to most of those in the Middle East, and the fact that the members of these communities were generally uninvolved in the events of World War I. The combination of these two factors meant that, for many, there was not the emotional attachment to the mother tongue which was found in the communities which developed from Turkish Armenian refugee stock. Nor, apparently, was there· such a strong attachment to the "traditional" Armenian identity of which the mother tongue was a crucial component. This meant that, accompanying this language shift - and probably as much a cause as an effect - there was both greater out-marriage and a greater tendency to join ch1.1rches other than the "national" Apostolic Church.

In the following examination of language maintenance and shift among the Armenians in Sydney, the main concern is only with those who were able

1 For many of the ethnic groups with these traits,. the maintenance of the mother tongue is for reasons other than maintaining communi-cations links with the younger generation, as both parents and children are generally fluent in a language besides that of their ethnic group. In these cases, what is important is the role of the language in the ethnic group's 'identity. 2 This shift may be seen as partially due to the fact that in many of these countries there was not the "bilingual " tradition which is found in the Middle East. Where there was basically one dominant language the pressure would have been greater to shed other languages. -256-

to speak Armenian on arrivaZ in Australia, as it is assumed that those who .could not, have not learned it since. Those who did not speak Armenian on arrival account for only seven per cent of the Armenian Survey respondents.

Patterns of Language Use ·

Before discussing Armenian language maintenance and shift in Sydney, it is first necessary to examine the language use patterns of the Armenian speakers at the time of the Survey. Although 93 per cent of the respondents can converse in Armenian, only 66 per cent of them usuaUy speak Armenian at home. Since the family is the principal vehicle by which the mother tongue is transferred (Fishman andNahirny, 1966a: 181), the lack of usage in the home by such a significant proportion of the population must be con­ sidered of crucial importance with respect to language maintenance.

Six characteristics of the Survey respondents were found to.be highly correlated with·mother tongue use in the home: the ethnic origin of the respondent's spouse; church affiliation; educational level; duration of residence in Australia; life-cycle stage at time of arrival; whether or· not the respondent. has any Australian-born children. With regard to these characteristics the. following patterns of Armenian language use were found:

(1) Those who are married to non-Armenians tend to speak English or another language at home, while those married to Armenians tend to speak Armenian. This is illustrated by the fact that 78 per cent of the endogamous couples generally use Armenian at home, compared to 11 per cent of those exogamous. Moreover, almost all (97 per cent) of those who useArmenian at home are married to other Armenians.

(2) Armenian language us·e in the home is most prevalent for members of .the Armenian Evangelical and Armenian Apostolic Churches (83 per cent and 71 per cent tespectively) and the least common for those of the (48 per cent) and members of · other churches (38 per cent). -257-

(3) The higher the level of education of the household head, the less likely that the Armenian language is used in the home and the more likely that English is used • For example, 84 per cent of those with . Primary education use Armenian at home compared with 63 per cent of those with tertiary education. In contrast, only three per cent of those with primary education usually speak English at home while 18 per cent of·those with tertiary edl,Jcation do so.

(4) The longer an Armenianhas lived in Australia, the less likely he is. to use Armenian in the home and the more likely he is to use English. Eighty-three per cent of thosce respondents who have lived in . Australia less than five years use Armenian in the home, compared with 29 per cent of those who have lived here for 20 or more years. Conversely, only seven per cent of the former group usually speak English at home, while 44 per cent of the latter group do so.

· (5) The more advanced the life-cycle stage at arrival in. Australia, the greater the trend towards using Armenian in the home, i.e., 85 per cent of those in the Old Age category compared to 50 per cent in the Dependent Child category. Although a similar trend was found for age at arrival, with the older respondents tending to use Armenian in the home and the younger ones tending to use English, this relationship was not statistically significant.

(6) Those with children born in Australia show a lesser .tendency to speak Armenian in the home than do those who have onZy children born overseas or no children at all. Sixty-five per cent of those with Australian- ~258-

born children usually speak Armenian at home compared with 74 per cent of those with no Australian-born children and 74 per cent of those with·only overseas­ born children.

The reasons for most of these patterns are clear. It is obvious that in cases of intermarriage where one spouse does not speak Armenian the likelihood of using another language in the home is great. This is especially true where the non-Armenian spouse's native language is English. Even where it is not; however, English or some language other than Armenian may be the on1y language the Armenian and non-Armenian spouses have in common.

The relationship of church affiliation to Armenian language ability has already been discussed. The fact that the Armenian Catholics and those who are affiliated with non-Armenian churches also tend not to use Armenian in the home, even though they have the ability to do so, is indicative of the general attitude of the members of these churches towards their ethnic identity and the retention of their mother tongue.. Also, unlike the Armenian Apostolic and Evangelical Church members, whose church services are conducted only in Armenian, the Armenian Catholics are not required to know Armenian to follow their services, which are given in other languages, such as Arabic., while those of most non-Armenian churches in Australia are given in English. Thus, there is not the church-language link in these latter churches whicq is found in the former two Armenian churches.

The educational level of the respondents is probably indirectly related to their use of the Armenian language in the home. Those with a high educational. level have been shown to not only have greater facility in English·before migration to Australia but also to be both more socially and occupationally mobile and to more readily participate in the host society's institutions after arrival. Because of their relatively rapid integration into Australian life, and their consequent lesser need to receive support from fellow Armenians, it can be postulated that they have been tempted to

neglect the maintenance of their own group life - including the mother tongue~

It is also ~ossible that they view the use of Armenian in the home as harmful to the future of their children 'in Australia, as too much emphasis on the -259-

mother tongue may serve to hinder their educational development in Australian schools where only Englis~ is considered important.

It has. been shown earlier that Armenians in Australia have generally learned English or improved their use of it over time. With this improvement in the dominant language has come a shift in usage from Armenian to English. Such improvement, however, cannot be considered the only cause of the change in language use within the home. Other factors associated with length of residence - such as the presence of institutional and social supports for language maintenance at the time they arrived,l their general level of adjustmerit to Australia, or, the fact that their children who were raised in. Australia may tend to speak English in the home - must all be considered to have contributed to this change.

The influence of the respondent's life-cycle stage at arrival is .closely related to the effect of young children on language usage. The use· of Armenian in the home is negatively related to the presence of young school- aged children who rapidly learn Englishand use it within the home. This is especially true with regard to children born in Australia or who came as infants, who were exposed to English at an early age and consequently tend to speak it at all times.2

Each of these characteristics is also highly correlated with the ·language used in the home by the respondents' children. In every case where there· is a greater tendency for the respondent to use Armenian in the. home, there. is a concomitant tendency for his children to do likewise. This is indicative of the. correlation between habitual language use in the home and the perpetuation of the language throughthe children.

1 Prior to the 1960's there were few social and institutional supports for Armenian language maintenance, such as ethnic schools. Also, a large portion of the earlier arrivals had come from.areas where the language of common usage was a Western language such as Dutch or English. 2 This finding was also made for the Chinese in Australia (Choi, 1970: 270). In this case the young children in the home constituted one of the most powerful factors influencing the parents to learn English. -260-

Armenian Language Maintenance and Shift in Australia

The extent of Armenian language maintenance, as well as the degree of language shift which occurs, is inherently bound up in the family and the attitudes especially of the parents, to retention of the mother tongue. 1 Since Fishman and Nahirny (Fishman and Nahirny, 1966a; Nahirny and Fishman, 1966) have shown that, for immigrant groups in America, language shift takes place over three generations, with the second and third generations after arrival exhibiting an appreciably lower frequency of mother tongue use, as well as a much less proficient mastery of it, it can be assumed from the recency of their arrival that the Armenians have undergone relatively little shift to date. Nevertheless, as shown by their patterns of language use, some shift has occurred. An examination of this shift, and its related factors, should help to indicate probable future trends.

The preservation of the Armenian language within the family, as well as its complement, language shift, were found to be dependent upon three principal factors: both parents speak Armenian and it is the primary means of communication in the home, both between the parents and between parents and children; 2 parents prefer their children to speak Armenian while in the home; parents consider the perpetuation of the Armenian language in Australia to be important or even essential.3

1 Grigorian (1971: 46) considered the central problem of Armenian language maintenance in America to be the fact that the children ceased to use the mother tongue in the home. Without reinforcement of the language by use in the home, other efforts, such as Saturday schools, have been shown to be of relatively little value. 2 Hayden (1966: 198) found that "All in all, one general feeling stands out clearly. The active use of the ethnic mother tongue in the home is primarily responsible for enabling children to attain mastery of it". Glazer (1966: 367) supports this view when he states "Insofar as language facility is communicated, it tends to be as a result of language use within the family in the earliest years of childhood". 3 The attitudes of immigrant children towards learning themother tongue are generally reflected in the attitudes of their parents towards main­ taining the language (Fishman and Nahirny, 1966b: 118). However, Hayden (1966: 198) noted that the" ..• desire to preserve the ethnic mother tongue, even though expressed as highly favourable attitudes, contributes but little towards language mastery when the language is no longer used in the home". -261-

In the great majority of the respondents' families (91 per cent), both spouses are Armenian speakers and nine-tenths of these use Armenian as their principal means of communication within the home. This contrasts with those families where only one spouse is able to speak Armenian. In all but one of the latter cases English was the principal means of communi­ cation in the home.

The predominant use of Armenian in the home by the parents has a significant effect on whether or no.t the children use the mother tongue in discussions among themselves. In 71 per cent of the cases where both parents tend to speak Armenian at home the children also generally use Armenian, while another seven per cent use a mb:ture of Armenian and English. In the remaining 22 per cent of the cases, the children almost always use only English. In contrast, where both parents speak English or another language at home, even though they .are both proficient in Armenian, the children speak only English when talking with one another.

It is natural that those parents who themselves speak Armenian in the home also prefer their children to do likewise. Nevertheless, in a quarterof these families the children did not share this view and preferred to speak English to one another. One reason for this was apparently the attitudes of the parents towards the perpetuation of the·Armenian language. In. three-quarters of those cases where the parents considered the ability to speak Armenian. to be absolutely neaessary for Armenians in Australia, the· children tended to speak Armenian at home. This contrasted with those families where the parents considered such an ability important, but not absolutely necessary, and those where language retention was felt to be neither necessary nor important. In only two-fifths of the cases where the language was considered important and in just over a quarter of those where it was not did the ch~ldren generally use only Armenian in talking with one another. In both instances the majority of these children had been over age 10 at arrival, indicating that their patterns of language use in the. home had already been largely formed before migration and were therefore less influenced by parental attitudes towards Armenian language maintenance in Australia. -262-

It was foundby Fishman and Nahirny (1966a: 182) that in immigrant families the younger children tend to use the mother tongue less than the older children, indicating a certain amount of intra-generational language shift. A similar finding was made for the Sydney Armenians, both with respect to age and place of birth. Approximately three-quarters of the older Armenian children were bilingual, i.e., they spoke both Armenian and English, while the remaining quarter spoke only English. This contrasted with the younger children, where two-thirds were bilingual and one third could converse only in English.

An even more significant difference was found between the overseas­ born and the Australian-born children. Of the former, five-sixths were bilingual and one-sixth spoke only English, compared with the latter where two-thirds were bilingual and one-third spoke only English. Duration of residence is also significant here, since children of earlier arrivals regardless of whether born overseas or in Australia - tend to speak only English while children of later arrivals, again regardless of place of birth, tend to be bilingual. The reasons for this are similar to those which have affected the language use of the parents of these children.

In summary, it appears that language shift from Armenian to English is occurring in Armenian families in Sydney, both within as well as between generations. The greatest shift has taken place in those families where emphasis is not given to the retention of the language and no effort is made to ensure it is used by the children within the home. It is thought likely that this shift will accelerate in the future, although it is con­ sidered unlikely that the use of Armenian will completely cease within the next generation, or even two generations. The fact that the ability to speak the Armenian language is felt to symbolize the transferrence of Armenian ethnic heritage for a significant portion of the Sydneycommunity is felt to be enough incentive to ensure that at least a minimum level of proficiency will be maintained by a part of succeeding generations.

Armenian Language Maintenance Outside the Family

Although the crucial domain for language maintenance is the home, -263-

no discussion of Armenian language maintenance. would be complete without a considet'ation of the efforts made outside the horne to ensure the preservation of the language. A number of the formal Armenian organizations in Sydney have established "Saturday" schools, with the principal aim of providing language instr~ction to the children. These organizations may be considered to be "linguistically retentive" in that they stress the importance of mother tongue maintenance. ·The other organizations, although non-retentive, play a more passive role with respect to language maintenance by providing situations where the Armenian language can be used and where children can be exposed to its use outside the horne.

The efforts made by the retentive organizations with respect to language maintenance are not directed at the. entire Sydney Armenian population. Th~y are mainly efforts made by and for those members of the community who highly value their ethnic identity and desire to preserve their mother tongue. As a rule, these are the families which already use Armenian·in the horne and where the children tend to speak Armenian among themselves. Consequently, the role of the Armenian Saturday Schools, youth organizations, and so on, is principally that of supporting or reinforcing the use of the Armenia:n language among the young people of these families and not that of teaching the language to .non-speakers. Fishman and Nahirny (1966a: 184) made a similar finding when they observed that, among the children of immigrants in the United States, knowledge qf the ethnic mother tongue was positively related to their organizational involvement and the more extensively affil­ iated the children were in ethnic organizations, the more likely they were to hold favourable attitudes towards the ethnic mother tongue._

Those Armenians who do not consider the retention of the Armenian language important and do not use it at home also tend not to be active in the linguistically retentive organizations and do not enroll their children in the Saturday Schools. Consequently, ·the influence of the formal organ­ izations on language retention in these families is negligible.

It is highly likely that the presence of these retentive organ­ izations and schools will help ensure the maintenance of the Armenian language for the foreseeable future, es.pecially for those who already place importance -264-

on the preservation of their Armenian identity and who speak the language at home. However, should Armenian cease being a "functional" language in the home - a language for everyday use - it is highly unlikely that these organizations and schools can indefinitely ensure its perpetuation. 1

It is possible to make tentative predictions about the future of Armenian language maintenance in Australia from the trends which have been found for the Armenians in the United States. Grigorian (1971) found that, on the whole, the pattern of language shift of the Armenian-Americans closely resembled that of other ethnic groups. By the third generation most had ceased to be "functionally bilingual", i.e., they no longer had the ability to speak Armenian as well as English. Furthermore, although the Armenian organizations supported language maintenance efforts to varying degrees, there developed a gradual shift in emphasis away from "functional" language maintenance to "cultural bilingualism", where the focus was on the cultural aspects of the Armenian language. This shift was caused by the recognition that the retentive organizations were not significantly more successful in producing functional bilinguals than those which did not consider the maintenance of the Armenian language an imperative goal, and by the greater attraction of the less retentive organizations to the second and third generation Armenian-Americans (Grigorian, 1971: 46). 2 According to Grigorian (1971: 48), the Armenian language erosion which accompanied this shift could not have been prevented, nor could functional bilingualism have been pro- longed, except possibly by a small "elite". Moreover, without the whole- sale movement away from emphasis on "functional" language maintenance to that of the cultural aspects of the language, Grigorian feels that Armenian ethnicity in the United States would have become too weak to withstand the forces of assimilation. With the change, however, at least part of the role of the Armenian language in the Armenian group identity was preserved.

Indications that Grigorian's assumptions are indeed correct are

1 .Hayden (1966: 205) found that if language transmission is delegated to ethnic agencies it will cease to be a functional language. 2 Fishman and Nahirny (1966a: 184) also found that third generation immigrants tended to join those organizations which were only marginally concerned with maintenance of the ethnic mother tongue. -265-

given by Kernaklian (1967: 81) who, in a study of another Armenian-American population, observed that although the Armenian language has been negatively affected by each succeeding generation, the more behavioural and relational aspects, including membership in Armenian organizations, have tended to be little affected. In other words, the group's social boundaries have been

< • •• maintained in spite of the cessation of the functional useof the language.

Although it is too early to predict with any certainty, the avail­ able evidence indicates that the trends just described for the Armenian- Americans will also very likely occur in Australia. It is even possible that the erosion of the Armenian language will be more rapid here. Unlike the first generation Armenian-Americans, those in Australia have more formal education, have emigrated mainly from urban centres rather than from rural. areas and possess more specialized skills. Also, most had some facility with the English language before arrival. All of these traits can be con­ ·sidered to make adjustment to Australian life both easier and quicker and such adjustment.can, in tt1rn, lead to greater and more rapid language shift. Nevertheless, as the Armenians in Australia today are either first or second generation immigrants, it is highly unlikely that Armenian will cease being a functional language for a significant part of the community for at least another generation.

INTERMARRIAGE: GENERAL

Intermarriage, taken here to be inter-ethnic or exogamous marriage, is a common topic of discussion and research in immigrant assimilation studies.

For decades the rate of in~ermarriage has been used as a measure of the speed with which ethnic groups shed their ethnic. identity and become assimilated into the host society or become incorporated into another ethnic group.l It has also been commonly assumed that intermarriage is an indicator of

1 According to Horowitz (1975: 115) there are two principal varieties of assimilation. Two or more groups may unite to form a new group, larger ·and different from a:ny of the component parts. This is usually referred to as "amalgamation". Alternatively, one group may lose its identity.by merging with another group, which retains its identity. This is called "incorporation". The term "amalgamation" was previously used· in assimilation studies to refer to intermarriage or "marital assimilation". -266-

ethnic consciousness, i.e., the extent to which a particular ethnic group is conscious of its own identity and possesses an ideology of non-assimilation (Fisher, 1977: 395). The underlying hypothesis of this assumption is that members of an ethnic group who wish to retain their ethnic identity con­ sciously seek out marriage partners from their own group. Therefore, ethnic consciousness is felt to lead to high rates of endogamy and differing rates of endogamy are then taken to measure differing degrees of ethnic consciousness - with high rates of intermarriage seen as a shedding of this ethnic consciousness and assimilation into the larger society.

The actual role of intermarriage in migrant assimilation and the use of intemarriage statistics as a reliable measure of such assimilation have been points of contention in assimilation studies. Those who argue that it is a crucial part of such studies view intermarriage as a reliable index of both ethnic group cohesion and its complement, assimilation (Choi, 1970: 222; Drachsler, 1921: 18 -19; Price, 1963: 256 -25 7). According to Price (1963: 256) "there can be little doubt that a high rate of inter­ marriage involves destruction of the original migrant group and is, .to that extent, a useful index of assimilation"~ He considers intermarriage to be the best measure of all the forces of assimilation at work, even though intemarriage ratios may not be directly relevant for an assessment of "integration", i.e., "the process whereby two or more ethnic groups adapt themselves so well that they accept and value each other's contribution to their common political and social life" (Price, 1963: 254; Price and Zubrzycki, 1962b: 59).

Others have questioned the importance of intermarriage in the migrant assimilation process, as well as the use of intermarriage statistics to measure the speed and direction of such assimilation. Their main argu- mentis that intermarriage is not necessarily accompanied.by assimilation in other areas, since marriage behaviour and assimilation are "two distinct and unconnected phenomena" (Price and Zubrzycki, .1962b: 58). Marcson (1950-Sl: 77-78) argued that some old and "well-assimilated" American ethnic groups have been maintaining a relatively high rate of in-group marriage for generations, which suggested that there was very little relationship ~267-

between their rate of intermarriage and their degree of assimilation. 1 ' \ In his view, if intermarriage and assimilation were truly functibnally f j dependen·t, then the intermarriage rate would continue to rise as the group reached complete assimilation. He concluded, therefore, that intermarriage is not an index of assimilation since an ethnic group may become assimilated into the larger society without showing a high rate of intermarriage (Marcson, 1950-51: 78).

Some students of migrant assimilation have even questioned the assumption .that intermarriage either leads to, or results in, an increase· in both frequency and intimacy of the migrant's contacts with host society members. 2 For example, Richardson (1962: 115-119) found that, because of the tensions generated within some mixed marriages, assimilation may actually · be retarded rather than strengthened. Also, in some cases, intermarriage may even lead to. the host society spouse being assimilated into the ethnic ·group rather than the reverse. Mapstone (1966: 300-301) gives just such a case for a British-Australian girl who married a Greek-Macedonian. In this instance the girl apparently adapted to the Greek-Macedonian community rather than the other way around. A process similar to this was found by Glazer and .Moynihan (1970: 313-314) with respect to marriages contracted between different religious groups and across ethnic group boundaries. . They noted that, although a great deal of intermarriage occurred among nationality groups within the three great religious groups, such marriages did not weaken religious identity. When they did occur between the different religions,

1 Price (1963: 257) notes, however, that Marcson's view is basically correct with respect to "integration" of migrants but not "assimilation". He further notes that Marcsori is actually confusing the two processes and . is referring to the integration of ethnic group members and not their ultimate assimilation. 2 This assumption has occupied a central place in many studies of migrant assimilation. For example, Zubrzycki (1956: 159), in his study of Polish immigrants inBritain, found that when intermarriages were considered successful according to the norms of both the ethnic group and the host society they generally led to a decline in prejudice against the ethnic group members. This, in turn, led to more intimate contacts. Likewise, Phillips (1968) noted that intermarriage was neaessaPy before primary group assimilation could proceed for the Italians of the Ovens Valley. Gordon's (1964: 80) scheme, however, placed large-scale entry into the primary groups of the host society as a prerequisite to extensive intermarriage. -268-

often one side or the other was·dominant, contributing to an increase in the numbers·of one of the groups, but not resulting.in any "blending" of the two. Consequently, with respect to intermarriage and assimilation, it .cannot always be assumed that the 'members of one group- usually taken to be the minority ethnic group - will become assimilated into the larger host society. The process may, in fact, work in both directions at the same time.

It is obvious that the relation of intermarriage to migrant . assimilation is not rigid, but varies depending on a number of factors, such­ as the cohesiveness of the migrant.group, its overall numbers and on the isolation of the individual immigrants from their group (Choi, 1970: 225). Nevertheless, the importance of intermarriage as an aspect of the migrant assimilation process must be recognized, regardless of the lack of agreement concerning the use of intermarriage statistics as a strong measure of such assimilation.

The intermarriage measures used in most assimilation studies are simple proportions, e.g., the proportion of intermarriages to the total number of marriages of the migrant group, although more complicated measures· have also been used. 1 All have been shown to have weaknesses, especially when the available data do not allow for: a differentiation between ethnic groups and others, such as nationality or birthplace groups; a differentiation between "sociological generations" and birthplace generations, i.e., those who are born overseas but grow up in the host country, from those who migrate from the same country as adults; the identification of those migrants who are single on arrival and actually exposed to intermarriage in the host country, the migrant "population at risk" (Choi, 1970: 226; Price, 1963: 256-258; 1970: 193; Price and Zubrzycki, 1962b: 63).

None of these three weaknesses are found in the Armenian Survey data, first, because ethnic origin is the prime distinguishing characteristic of the Survey respondents, regardless of birthplace or nationality, and second,

1 See Price and Zubrzycki (1962b: 66-67) for a discussion of such measures as the Index of Homogamy. -269-

be~ause year of birth;place of birth, year of arrival and age and marital status at arrival are known. It is possible, however, that the criterion of being single on arrival is not always synonymous withbeing "at risk" of intermarriage in Australia. This is often considered to be the case·for those fiances'who migrated to Australia in order to marry. According to Price (1963: 257;...258), such marriages tend to take place at least.within · a few weeks after the arrival of the fiance in Australia. Consequently, the partner who arrives later has not had.the opportunity to marry outside his or her own ethnic group. Undoubtedly, this means. that the one who arrived earlier has also not been exposed to intermarriage because he or she was engaged to the girl or boy·back home- an assumption which may not always be valid. ·Since the collection of the Armenian Survey data was based on households rather than individuals, whether or not one of the spouses in a married household arrived as a fiance and subsequently married in Australia is therefore not deemed to alter the fact that the other partner was exposed to the·risk of intermarriage before his or her arrival. 1 The same is true for tho.se who returned overseas to marry - what is. commonly referred to as "visit marriages". Because they were unmarried for a time after first arrival, they too were technically "at risk" of intermarriage in Australia. Con.sequently, the basic criterion of being single on arrival is assumed to indicate exposure to intermarriage in Australia •

. There are limitations on the use of the Armenian Survey data which arise from the way in which the information.was collected. First of all, the fact that the Survey was oriented towards the male household heads means that there was probably an underreporting of the females who have intermarried. A comparison of. intermarriage rates for the male a,nd female respondents, however, sh.ows very little difference (24 per cent for men, 23 .· per cent for women). For this reason, all respondents are considered in calculations of intermarriage ratios without any.attempt to distinguish between male and female respondents.

A second limitation stems from the principal sources from which

1 Such "wharfside marriages" have not, in fact, been very prevalent among the Sydney Armenians. Only 17 per cent of the respondents who married after migrating to Australia did so within one year of arrival. -270-

most of the addresses of Armenian households were obtained (see Chapter One). It can be assumed that those Zeast involved with the Armenian community and the most assimilated into Australian society are also those who were the most underrepresented in the Survey. It can also be assumed that these Armenians have the greatest propensity to intermarry. Thus, the inter­ marriage rates and ratios derived from the Armenian Survey data can be con­ sidered only baseline figures which, in reality, are very likely higher.

Two intermarriage ratios are calculated for the Armenians, Ratios A and B. 1 Each tells a different story concerning Armenian ethnic group solidarity. Ratio A, the total number of Armenian intermarriages divided by the total number of marriages, measures the extent of intermarriage at any given time. It is also indicative of the degree of group solidarity and group cohesion. Ratio B is the number of intermarriages contracted afte:r> migration, divided by the total number of marriages contracted after fi:r>st a:r>:r>ivaZ in Australia. This ratio is indicative of the intermarriage trends in Australia and the likelihood that ethnic group solidarity will be maintained, or that the group will become rapidly assimilated. Since those who arrived single are considered here to have been "at risk" of intermarriage - regardless of whether they arrived as fiances or later returned home to marry - Ratio B is equivalent to Ratio B(t), the "true" intermarriage ratio which has been adjusted for those at risk.

Background and Trends of Armenian Intermarriage

In traditional Armenian society there was virtually no out-marriage (Matossian, 1962: 5). Armenians lived in their own sections of cities or towns or in their own villages in rural areas, attended their own churches and married other Armenians. For the majority, who resided in Turkey, most out-marriage was forbidden by law. Marriage with Turks was not only forbidden by the Armenian Apostolic Church which possessed, under Turkish law, the sole authority for performing Armenian marriages, but was abhorred. by Armenians who felt that a Christian Armenian woman who married a non­ Christian Turk would suffer "a fate worse than death". The strength of this

1 See Price (1963: 257) and Price and Zubrzycki (1962a;l962b) for discussions arid examples of the use of these ratios and their variations. -271-

belief was shown by the large number of Armenian women who, during .the massacres of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, accepted death rather than save their lives by marrying Moslems (Nelson, 1954a: 43).

This at'titude towards out-marriage was not restricted to marriage with Moslems, although feelings against such marriages were indeed the strongest. In most communities, even those located in non-Moslem countries, the Armenian elders and Apostolic Church both considered marriage to an

11 0dar11 (the term used to identify a non-Armenian) as ''tantamount to a betrayal of parental respect and disregard of the teachings of the Church" (Minasian, 1961: 197). The reason for·this is plain: in the great majority of Armenian-Odar marriages, the Armenian partner tended to cease participating in Armenian affairs, no longer attended social functions or joined Armenian organizations and, most important, he or she generally left the Church ·(Minasian, 1961: 197). Thus, in most respects, the intermarried Armenians ceased to take any active part in their native community.!

Intermarriage by Armenians began to increase gradually during the latter half of the nineteenth century, although it was .. largely restricted to the wealthier, urbanized Armenians who had been educated in Russian or European schools (Matossian, 1962: 17). Following the massacres and dis­ persions of the World War I period, manysettled in Christian countries where the.stigma of out-marriage was not so great. Although the first generation Armenian immigrants or refugees strove to maintain their more traditional endogamous values in their new countries, interniarria_ge often increased with the second generation. 2 Nevertheless, the primacy of endogamy f_or the Armenians in many of these countries has tended to remain (Kernaklian, 1967: 105).

1 Price (1963: 263-264) found a similar situation for the Southern European immigrants in Australia. 2 This has been shown to. be the case for the Armenians who settled in Fresno, California, after World War I. Intermarriage by the first -generation was insignificant (2.64 per cent) and was comparable to that found for other first generation immigrant groups, such as the Jews. The second generation, however, showed a sharp increase in intermarriage.(l7.94 per cent) (Nelson, 1954a: 44-46). -272-

For those Armenians who stayed in the Middle East, the situation with respect to endogamywas not greatly altered. The Moslem Turk was

replaced by the Mosl~m Arab and the traditional relationship of the minority Christian Armenians .to the majority Moslem population was similar to what it had been in Turkey.· Consequently, the amount of intermarriage which . occurred in the Armenian communities in these countries was relatively low in· comparison with what took place in countries such as the United States.l

Although the Armenians in Australia cannot be considered a representad:ve sample of the Armenians worldwide, it is still possible to obtain an idea of the extent of their niixed.marriages in the past by examin..;. · ing the intermarriage rates of the parents of the Armenian Survey respondents.

Table 6.2 shows the intermarriage rates for the respondents' parents by present ·age of the respondents. Age of·respondent was used in

Table 6.2

Intermarriage Among Respondents' Parents·

Number of 2 Present Age of Number o£ 1 Intermarriage Exogamous Rate Respondent Parental Marriages Marriages (Ratio A)

20-29 86 6 7 30-39 229 16 7 40..,.49 217 13 6 50-:-59 180 9 5 60 or More 167 5 3

Total 879 49 6

1 Excludes those who did not answer. 2 · All rates are rounded to the nearest whole number.

1 For example, an examination of 272 Armenian Apostolic marriages in Lebanon in 1961 ·found only 7. 3 per cent intermarri.ed (Melikian and Karapetian, 1977: 187), while Nelson (1954a: 45) found that the Armenians in Fresno had two.and a half times as many. -273-

lieu of the year of marriage of the parents, which was not obtained on the Survey questionnaire.. The trend noted clearly indicates that intermarriage had been on the increase prior to the beginning of the Armenian immigration to Australia, although it was .still relatively infrequent.

This trend has continued for the respondents themselves, showing a steady increase in the intermarriage rate over time (Table 6.3). Included in this. trend, however, are basically two separate trends - one for those married prior to migration and one for those who have married since migrating to Australia. The respondents who married overseas prior to 1945 exhibit an intermarriage rate almost equal to that found for the parental generation, indicating that the pre-War intermarriage rate for DiasporaArmenians was probably around six to seven per cent. The number of mixed marriages con- tracted overseas since the War substantially increased, culminating in a rate of.l7 per cent for those married between 1963 and 1976. 1 In all, the exogamy rate of those immigrants marriedprior to migration to Australia was twice that of their parent's generation.

The intermarriage rate for those who were single on arrival in Australia is significantly different. Not only is the rate of exogamy almost double that. of the migrants who married prior to migration, but the trend in intermarriage appears to be in the opposite direction. This apparent anomaly can be explained by reference to the trends of Armenian migration to Australia. The very high exogamy rate for those married prior to 1963 is a direct. function of the relatively small number of Armenians who migrated to Australia during this period (see Chapter Three), and the con- sequent lack of available Armenians to marry. The considerable d:top in the intermarriage rate in the following two periods, 1963-72 and 1973-76, can be attributed to the large influx of .Armenians in the 1963-65 period, many of whom were single and of marriageable age.

· The small upturn in the intermarriage rate rioted for the period

1 Melikian and Karapetian (1977: 187) noted a similar trend for . They found that intermarriages increased from 7.3 per cent to 10.7 per cent in the 10 year period ending 1971. -274-

Table 6.3

Intermarriage Trends of Sydney Armenians

Total Number 1 Number of Intermarriage Year Married of Marriages Exogamous Marriages Rate2

Intermarriage Among All Respondents by Year Married (Ratio A)

Prior to 1945 121 10 8 1945-1962 287 48 17 1963-1976 310 63 20

Total 718 121 17

Intermarriage Among Those Respondents Married Before Migration

Prior to.1945 118 8 7 1945-1962 272 39 14 1963-1976 75 13 17

Total 465 60 13

Intermarriage Among Those Respondents Married Since Arrival (Ratio B(t))

Prior to 1963 18 11 61 1963-196 7 51 13 25 1968-1972 106 20 19 1973-1976 78 17 22

Total 253 61 24

l Excludes those who did not answer. 2 All rates are rounded to nearest whole number.

1973~76 indicates the probable trend for the future. Although immigration of Armenians after 1966 declined significantly, the size of the Armenian community in Sydney was sufficient to provide spouses for later arrivals. This is aptly illustrated in Table 6.4, which shows that the more recent arrivals have been the least exogamous and the intermarriage rate appears to have levelled off at around 20 per cent. What is taking place within the Armenian community as a whole is the arrival at marriageable age of those who migrated as children and who have grown up in Australia. Because they are generally more assimilated into Australian society than those who migrated Table 6.4 Intermarriage Trends by Year of Arrival in Australia Number of Year of Arrival Number Exposed1 Number of Marriages Intermarriage Exogamous Marriages Rate in Australia to Intermarriage in Australia in Australia (Ratio B(t)) Prior to 1963 40 33 14 42 1963-196 7 193 161 35 22 1968-19763 113 60 12 20

Total 346 254 61 24

1 Excludes those who did not answer. 2 All rates are rounded to the nearest whole number. 3 Period 1968-1972 and 1973-1976 were combined due to the fact that only four respondents who arrived after 1972 were married in Australia. I N -...! V1 I -276.,-

as adults, the tendency to marry out is that much greater. This is also shown by the fact that the rate of mixed marriages among the respondents' children who have married in Australia is currently 42 per cent, with the greatest proportion (58 per cent) being among children of respondentswho have resided in Australia for 15 years or more. Thus, even with a sub- stantial increase in new Armenian immigration, which would almost certainly lower the overall exogamy rate, there is every likelihood that intermarriage will continue to increase.

Not all of those who have married since arrival in Australia have done so in Australia: twenty-six of the Survey respondents, or 10 per cent of those who have married since migration, were married overseas. Eighteen of them returned to their former places of residence to marry, while all but one of the rest married in another country in the same region of last residence. Members of two country groups, those from Lebanon and Iran, were found to be the most overrepresented with respect to return visits for the purpose of marrying. This can be partially explained by the fact that they are also noted for being two of the more traditional of the Armenian country groups. All of these visit marriages were endogamous.

Of those who have interma.rried since migration, only half have married British-Australians, while the other half have married members of other ethnic groups (Table 6.5). Prior to 1963, almost three-quarters of those who intermarried did so with British-Australians, while in the following five years the proportion was much smaller. This was probably due to the large influx of Middle Easterners during the 1960's (Price and Martin, 1976: A20-A21). Since 1967, the proportion intermarrying with British-Australians has levelled off at around the 50 per cent mark. Most of those who have married members of other ethnic groups have chosen persons who have come from the same country. or region of origin, indicating that background factors similar to those leading to endogamous marriages are also influential here.

Characteristics of Those Who Intermarried

Intermarriage overseas and in Australia appears related to the same background characteristics. For example, those from the South, East and -277-

Table 6.5

Intermarriage in Australia with British-Australians of Members of Other Ethnic Groups

Number of Marriages to Exogamous Marriages to Members of Year Married Marriages in British-Australians Other Ethnic Australia Grou:es (N=) %1 (N=) %1

Prior to 1963 11 (8) 73 (3) 27 1963-1967 13 (3) 23 (10) 77 1968-1972 20 (11) 55 (9) 45 1973-1976 17 (8) 47 (9) 53

Total 61 (30) 49 (31) 51

1 All perceri,tages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

Swtheast Asian countries have the largest proportions who have intermarried both before and after migration, while those from the. non-Arab Middle East have the smallest proportions in each instance (Table 6.6).

Similar findings were made for such characteristics as educational level, religion, occupation, whether or not they spoke the Armenian language and whether or not their parents were intermarried. In every case, those characteristics which were·correlated with greater exogamy overseas were also correlated with greater exogamy in Australia. It was felt that a number o.f factors other than the above would also affect the intermarriage trends in Australia; the three principal ones. being the age of the single respondents on arrival, the duration of their residence in Australia before marriage, and whether or not they spoke English on arrival. All three factors are associated with the overall adjustment of the Armenians in Australia and could be assumed to influence whether or not they married outside the Armenian community. Table 6.6 Intermarriage Rates of Country Groups Inter-1 Total Inter-l Number of· Number of Inter:.l Number of Number of. Number of Marriages Marriages marriage Number marriage Region/Country of Exogamous marriage Exogamous Exogamous Before in Rate of Rate Last Residence Marriages Rate . Marriages Marriages Migration Australia (Ratio B(t)) Marriages (Ratio A) Arab Middle East Egypt 142 23 16 93 16 17 235 39 17 Syria 35 1 3 15 4 27 50 5 20 Lebanon 46 6 10 44 9 21 90 15 17 Jordan (+ Israel) 37 0 0 36 11 31 73 11 15 Iraq 18 4 22 4 2 50 22 6 27 Other Arab ME 19 1 5 11 2 18 30 3 10 Sub-Total 297 35 12 203 44 22 500 79 16 Non-Arab Middle East Turkey 17 0 ·o 2 0 0 ·19 0 0 Iran 62 2 3 11 0 0 73 2 3 I N Soviet Armenia ...... C» (+USSR) 11 .2 18 0 0 0 11 2 18 I Sub-Total 90 4 4 13 0 0 103 4 4 South, East and Southeast Asia Indonesia 10 1 10 5 2 40 15 3 20 India 21 5 24 6 3 50 27 8 30 Other Asia 12 2 17 3 3 100 15 5 33 Sub-Total 43 8 19 14 8 57 57 16 28 Europe and North America 32 11 34 15 4 27 47 15 32 Other Countries 13 4 31 9 5 56 22 9 41 Total 475 62 13 254 61 24 729 123 27 1 All rates are rounded to the nearest whole number.

. . -279-

Age at arrival was found to have little effect on the intermarriage rates. TwentY:-one per cent of those who were over 30 at arrival inter­ married compared with 23 per cent of those who were under 20. Their period of residence in Australia before marriage was also not statistically significant, although the proportion o.f.those who intermarried was greater for those who had lived in Australia for 10 or more years before marrying.

The respondents'. proficiency in English on arrival had no significant influence on intermarriage trends in Australia, although those · who were very fluent showed a slightly greater tendeney---t--e--i-ntermarry (30 per cent) than did those who· spoke no English at all on arrival (26 per cent).

Migration to Australia, therefore, has apparently led mainly to an acceleration of the intermarriage trends which were already apparent overseas. According to the Armenian respondents in Sydney this is attributable to the fact that Australia, being aWestern, Christian nation, does not generate the internal and external pressures which were present in ·the Middle East and which helped to ensure thatyoung Armenians married within the group.

The charact.eristics of the respondents which. were fo1,1nd to be positively associated with exogamy are basically those which are ·associated with a lack of Armenian ethnic consciousness. In summary, those who have intermarried are characterized by a combination of the following: they are the more .educated:, especially the tertiary educated; they hold white-collar jobs; they are members of non..,.;Armenian churches, or are Armenian Catholics; · they are from regions other than the Arab Middle East; their parents were intermarried; they do not speak Armenian; they have resided in Australia for 10 or more years before marrying. It is apparent from these characteristics, then, that f9r the Sydney Armenians, intermarriage is definitely an indicator of a greater tendency towards assimilation.

Patterns of Endogamous Marriages

The rate of endogamy of the Armenians is dependent upon the availa­ bility of Armenians to marry which, in turn, is dependent upon both the overall size of the Armenian community and the various social and cultural -280-

cleavages within the community. With respect to the latter, country back­ ground is probably themost significant in limiting the number of potential partners considered available.

Price (1955) devised a method for determining the tendency for particular birthplace groups to intermarry or to obtain spouses from within their own groups. He based his method on those men and women considered available to be married. The advantage of this method was that it took account of the effect of.the numerical size of the different groups or sub- groups. For example, it is obvious that the smaller the group the less the chance tha.t anyone would marry into .it simply because of the small number of available partners and. the greater the chance that members of the group - would marry out. Thus, by comparing the actual number of marriages between groups with that which could be expected from the number of available partners in the groups, it. is possible to determine the tendency of group members to marry both within and outside their own group.

Applying this method to the birthplace groups1 of the Sydney Armenian community shows the marriage behaviour of bothmale and female Armenians who arrived single and have since married (Tables 6 .. 7a and b). Because of the limitations of the Armenian Survey data it was not possible to sort out those who arrived as engaged persons, but the number is considered small ahd their inclusion is not thought to greatly affect the trends noted. All of those who were single on arrival are assumed to have had the oppor­ tunity to marry outside their own birthplace group, either to other Armenians or to non-Armenians. Whether or not they eventually married in Australia or returned overseas to marry is considered irrelevant here as they were still exposed to the possibility of marriage in Australia.

The tendency to marry within the birthplace group, within the Armenian community or with non-Armenians is indicated by the indeX: derived from a division of the number of observed marriages by the number of expected marriages between any two groups. This is given by %/C. with an index of

1 Birthplace rather than country of last residence was used here due to the fact that country of last residence was not obtained on the wives of the male Survey respondents. ·

I' Table 6.7a Tendency to Marry In or Out of Own Birthplace Group (Males)

Males Marrying j..n Atistr~lia_plJIS YisJt_Mar'J:'ia_ges Birthpl?ce of Available Females Arab Middle Non-Arab South, East and Europe and Other Non- Total East Middle East Southeast Asia North America Countries Armenian Females Availablel 163 23. 11 5 1 2502 4533 Chances (C) 36.0 5.1 2.4 1.1 0.2 55.2 100 Arab Middle East 145 --- -8 ------3 ----- __3____ 1 440fY'+ 204 % 71.1 3. 9 1. 5 1. 5 0. 5 21. 6 100 %/C 198 76 63 136 250 39 Non~Arab Middle East 8 11 - - - 3 22 % 36.4 50.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 13.6 100 %/C 101 980 - - - 25 South, East and .~ Southeast Asia 7(2) 4 14 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 100 I 91 N 00 -I-' I 7 100 - 3 100 - 9 5 1 581.14)4 250 3.6 2.0 0.4 23.2 - 100 /C 173 165 150 182 200 42 Table 6.7b

Tendency to Harry In or Out of Own Birthplace Group (Females)

. _F'e1llale_~;_ Marrying in Australia plu~ Vis_i t Marr-iages Birthplace of Ayailable Males Arab Middle Non-Arab South, East and Europe and Other Non- Total East Middle East Southeast Asia North America Countries Armenian Males Availabler ______267 41 . 19 9 5 195 -.5363 Chances (C) 49.8 7. 7 3.5 1. 7 0.9 36.4 100 Arab Middle East 145 8 - 2 1 2 158 % 91. 8 5 • 1 0 . 0 1. 3 0 . 6 1. 3 100 %/C 184 66 - 76 67 4 ~on-Arab Middle East 8 1 1 - 1 21 % 38.1 . 52.4 4. 8 0. 0 4. 8 0.0 1.00 %/C 77 681 137 - 533 ~ South, East and ·~ Southeast Asia 3 6 1 10 ~ % 30.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 100 ~ I N %/C 60 1714 27 - 00 ~ N 00 Europe and I ~~ North America 3 2 5 % 60.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 100 %/C 120 2353. - - ! Other Countries 1 - 1 % 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 %/C 201 - - - Total 160 19 7 4 2 34 195 % 82.1 9.7 3.6 2.1 1.0 1.5 100 %/C 165 126 103 124 111 4 1 Available Armenian males were taken to be the total number of male respondents who arrived single plus the Armenian husbands of Armenian female respondents who married in Australia. 2 Non-Armenian males available are taken to be equivalent to the total number of Armenian females who married in Australia. This includes both Australian-born and foreign-born non-Armenians. 3 Taken to be the total number of available males whom Armenian females could marry in Australia. 4 Because of the nature of the Armenian Survey data the number of Armenian females married to non-Armenian males is probably under-reported. However, the fact that there were many more males than females would have probably kept the leyel of out-marriage for females very low. Nevertheless, Armenian ·females are probably more exogamous than shown in this table. -283-

100 indicating that the number of actual marriages equals the number expected. A figure greater than 100 means more marriages than expected took place, while a figure of less than 100 means the observed marriages were less than those expected.

It is clear that there is a strong tendency for both Armenian males and females who in-marry to do so within their own birthplace groups. This tendency is greatest for the smaller groups, even though some of these groups also have the highest rates of exogamy. Those who marry outside their.birthplace groups tend to marry within their regional groups. Here, however, it is the more populous regional groups which show the strongest trends. It is also these regional groups which are the most endogamous with respect to ethnic group marriages. Overall, there are relatively few marriages contracted between Armenians from different regional groups.

M~st of these trends are directly influenced by the number of available women and men in each birthplace group, as well as by the overall ratio of available men to women. According to Price and Zubrzycki (1962a: 127), when the men greatly out-number the women there is considerable pressure on the "marriage markets", leading to high in-marriage of women and increased out-marriage of men. Such a situation exists for the Armenians, although there are interesting differences found between the marriage behaviours of men and women.

The men who in-marry show a greater propensity to marry within their own birthplace and regional groups than do the women. This can be directly attributed to the fact that the over-availability of men gives them less choice in finding an Armenian marriage partner, even from another region. The opposite holds true for the women. They have a much greater number of potential Armenian partners from which to choose, thus increasing their chances of marrying Armenian men from outside their own birthplace or regional groups. Obviously, and for the same reason, a greater proportion of the men marry non-Armenian women, while Armenian women are much more endogamous.

Exogamy is therefore affected not ~nly by the overall number of -284-

available Armenian marriage partners but also by thenumber of available partners from the same birthplace or regional group. Where there is a strong preference to marry within the birthplace, or at least within the regional group, and the number of available marriage partners is quite small, there is increased exogamy. .With the birthplace and regional groups which have a large number of available marriage partners, the tendency to endogamy is greater. This indicates that many Armenians apparently prefer to marry non-Armenians rather than to marry Armenians who have come from other regions or countries. The following remarks concerning whom the respondents' children should marry are illustrative of this attitude:

"I prefer they [my children] marry Armenians from Egypt. Their characteristics would be the same. Their outlook would be the same. If the Armenian was from elsewhere, I would not want· them to marry the Armenian." (39-year old Egyptian Armenian) •

''If they [my children] don't marry an Armenian from Egypt or the Sudan, I would prefer theymarry another ·nationality." (47-year old Sudanese Armenian).

It is likely, however, that such preferences will have much less influence on the selection of marriage partners in the future, since only 24 per cent of the Armenians stated that they wanted.their children to marry someone from the same birthplace group.

Attitudes Towards Intermarriage

To understand the change which has taken place in the Armenian intermarriage patterns, as well as likely future trends, it is useful to examine the attitudes of the respondents towards intermarriage, especially with regard to the intermarriage of their children. Thirty-eight per cent of those interviewed opposed their children marrying non-Armenians, while another 36 per cent who did not actually oppose intermarriage, stated they still preferred that their children marry Armenians. Only three interviewed respondents stated they actually preferred them to marry non-Armenians (Table 6.8). The most common reason given for opposing intermarriage, as well as "preferring" in-marriage, was the desire to maintain the Armenian -285-

Table 6. 8

Attitudes Towards Children Marrying Non-Armenians

Number of Interviewed Attitudes Respondents Expressing Attitudes I

Definitely Opposed 37 38 Did Not Oppose but Preferred They Marry Armenians 35 36 Did Not Oppose and Did Not Prefer They Marry Armenians 20 21 Preferred They Marry Non-Armenians 3 3 Did not Care 1 1 No Answer 1 1

Total 97 100

1 Based on 97 interviewed respondents. Includes both single and married and those with, as well as without, children. 2 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

identity, nationality and cultural heritage. Almost half those interviewed gave this as their principal reason for wanting endogamous marriages (Table 6. 9). The following are some examples of this attitude which were expressed in statements given by these Armenians:

"I want to maintain the Armenians. If my sons marry non­ Armenians the third generation is lost. I want to maintain the Armenian heritage." (55-year old Egyptian Armenian).

"Because we are a minority we would lose our identity as Armenians. There are only a few of us left. If they intermarry, in a hundred years time there are none left." (32-year old Iranian Armenian).

"If they marry foreign people we would lose them as Armenians. Their children would belong to another nation. We would lose them." (36-year old Iranian Armenian). Table 6.9 Reasons Given for Wanting Children to Marry Within the Group 1

Replies From Replies From· Total Number Those Who Don't Object of Reasons Those Who Object of Replies 'i- to Inter-Marriage But Prefer In-Marriage All Replies N= (N=) %2 (N=) ' %2 Desire to maintain identity/heritage/nation ·(25) 48 (17) 43 42 46

Desire to ensure the perpetuation of the "Armenian Cause" of a free and independent Armenia (6) 12 (0) 0 6 7

- Children's families would be happier and more stable if spouses were Armenian (15) 29 (20) 50 35 38 I N 00 Intermarriage would form a 0\ barrier between generations (6) 12 (3) 8 9 10 I - Total (52) 3 100 (40)4 100 92 100 -- 1 Includes only those 72 interviewed respondents who either object to their children intermarrying, or else do not object but still prefer them to marry Armenians. 2 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point. 3 Replies given by 37 interviewed respondents who objected to their children 4 Replies given by 35 interviewed respondents who did not object to intermarriage but who still preferred them to marry Armenians. -287-

"I prefer she marry an Armenian because she has grown up in an Armenian circle. Our ancestors sacrificed every­ thing to keep their identity as Armenians. If she marries an Australian we would lose her." (56-year old Egyptian Armenian).

"Prefer they marry Armenians. ·I'm proud to be an Armenian and would like to see my children k~ep the nation ·alive and not to lose the little that we have. It enables Armenian life to carry on. If they out-marry, the little Armenian in us will break up and get lost." (43-year old Indian Armenian).

"Prefer they marry Armenians to keep the .nation and people going. If they intermarry the national will d'issolve." (35-year old Jordanian Armenian).

"If they marry a non-Armenian they are lost. Like the fish,.if you take them out of the sea, they're lost." (41-year old Jordanian Armenian).

"Prefer they marry Armenians. To keep the.national;ty, language and customs which our grandparents shed so much blood for." (45-year old Lebanese Armenian).

Closely related to the desire to perpetuate the Armenian identity and people is the desire by a number of·the Armenians to ensure that their children continue to pursue the "Armenian Cause" of eventually obtaining a free and independent Armenia. Seven per cent of the interviewed respondents gave this as an important reason for wanting their children to marry within the group· and all of them objected to their children intermarrying. The following remarks illustrate this:

"I bel:i.eve we should.keep our language and heritage. We are not here by choice. In order to keep our identity, we have a cause to pursue. There are not enough Armenians in the world as it is." (18-year old Syrian Armenian).

"I feel we are going back [to Armenia] one day - getting out country back - and I want my children to go back. If she marries a non-Armenian she will be lost." (33- year old Lebanese Armenian).

"We have a cause to pursue and the Armenian Cause will only be pursued by Armenians, not non-Armenians. I would classify a daughter who married out and my grandchildren as 'massacred'." (48-year old Iranian Armenian). -288-

It is signific~nt to note that all of those who gave the nArmenian Cause" as a reason for marrying within the group ·came from the Middle East.

The second major group of reasons given for opposing intermarriage centres on the interpersonal tensions which might arise from such unions • . Thirty-eight per cent of those interviewed felt their children would be. happier and their marriages more stable if they married Armenians. Most cited problems in understanding and in conununication between spouses as the likely result of a mi4Ced marriage. The following remarks illustrate this feeling:

"Each will try to bring the other to their way of thinking. It creates rifts i_n marriage which will not work out." (72-year old EgyptianArmenian).

"Australian families don't have a family life, they can't form a family. They get divorced too often. · If they were in love I wouldn '.t oppose but would advise them not to marry. Most Australians can't form proper families or look after their kids." (47-year old Lebanese Armenian).

"My children couldn't understand their spouses and vice­ versa." (31-year old Iranian Armenian).

"Prefer Armenians. The smoothness in the family and the way of life. Armenian: girls are pure, gpod housewives and look after their family properly." (34-year old Egyptian Armenian).

"Prefer they marry Armenians because of the difficult situations of adapting Armenian customs together. They will have better understanding, less disputes and fights." (46-year old Egyptian Armenian). ·

"Prefer they marry Armenians. I think they get along with each other better than others. They won't have a barrier between them. 11 (30-yea:r old Lebanese Armenian).

"Prefer Armenians because it is easier to communicate." . (58-year old Turkish Armenian).

"Prefer Armenians. I think they can live together, think alike." (45-year old Iranian Armenian).

"Prefer Armenians. They would have our customs and ways ·.of thinking. If you have a foreigner at home you may have complications. It would be easier for them to form a happy union, to have a happy marriage." (54-year old Cypriot Armenian). -289-

"Prefer Armenians. They would be able to communicate. The rules would be the same." (39-year old Turkish Armenian).

In addition to the problems which were seen to be inherent in mixed marriages a number of the interviewed respondents felt such marriages would constitute a barrier between themselves and their children and grandchildren •. The following remarks are representative of this feeling:

"We w6uld not be able to be close to them [our children]." (52-year old Syrian Armenian).

"If they marry an Armenian there will be more communications between the two families." (53-year old Syrian Armenian).

In all, one tenth of the :interviewed respondents gave this as one of their reasons for objecting.to out-marriage, or for preferring in..;.marriage.

Only one of the 97interviewees expressed the opinion that it was

totally up to his childr~n whom they married and it did not concern him. Of the three who preferred their children to marry non-Armenians, one came from the Sudan, one from Indonesia and one from France • They expressed no . common sentiment, but desired mixed marriages for three different reasons. The Indonesian Armenian saw it as a means by which his children could become full menibers of Australian society; the Sudanese Armenian felt marriage to a non-Armenian would allow his children greater personal freedom than marriage· to an Armeni8:n;.the French Armenian, who has no contact with other Armenians and is married to an Australian, could see no reason for his children to marry Armenians.

Thus, within the Armenian community, there is a complete range of sentiments regarding intermarriage, although the great majority .of Armenians are either opposed to such marriages or at least prefer. their children to marry other Armenians. It is interesting to note that among half of those who·obviously prefer.endogamous marriages there seems to be a feeling that

the door to possible mixed marriages should not be e~tirely closed, that one should at least pay lip service to the notion that exogamous marriages are not really bad. -290-

In general, the women·respondents and the wives of the male respondents were more oppo::;ed to the intermarriage of their children than were Armenian men. Also, both parents felt that for a daughter to marry a non-Armenian was much worse than for a son to do so. 1 This quite common sentiment is expressed in the following statement made by a 56 year old Egyptian Armenian:

"If it was a daughter -r would be opposed. A son could change his wife to Armenian."

Most Armenians seem to feel that the "wife goes to the husband", that is, she accepts the husband's way of life. Consequently, an Armenian woman marrying a non-Armenian man was felt to become non-Armenian, at least as far as her Armenian relations were concerned, and was therefore "lost" to the Armenians. .Since the wife accepts the husband's way of life, an Armenian man who married out was seen to change his non-Armenian wife to Armenian. Although there is undo\,lbtedly a grain of truth in this assumption, the ava~lable evidence indi_cates that those who marry out - both males and females - tend to move away from the community and cut their ties. In fact, the very act of intermarrying is indicative of a weakening of the individual's ties with the Armenian community.

It can be expected that the .attitudes towards intermarriage are associatedwith the backgrounds of the .immigrants.. Chimbos (1971) found a numberof characteristics of Greek, Slovak and Dutch immigrants in Canada to be important with regard to their attitudes towards their children inter• marrying. The characteristics were educational level, size of the community of origin, age at time of migration, whether or not the immigrants themselves were intermarried, and their religion.

For the Armenians, all but age at time of migration and educational level were found to be significantly correlated with the immigrants'

1 Many Armenian parents did not want their daughters to go out with Australians. They felt that Australian boys would not respect their daughters and could not be trusted. It was not considered so bad for Armenian boys to go out with Australian girls. -291-

attitudes towards intermarriage. Size of the community of origin was correlated with the proportion·of each country group who opposed their children intermarrying. For example, those from the large communities of the Middle East more commonly opposed intermarriage than those from the small communities of South, East and ~outheast Asia. Other factors besides numerical size are involved here however. It has already been shown that the former communities were the more traditional and much more concerned with the perpetuation of the Armenian identity than the latter.

Religion was not generally mentioned by the respondents as a reason for endogamous marriages, except in the case of the Armenian Catholics. The reason for this may be that, for most Armenians, it was taken for granted that inarriage within the group also· meant marriage within the same religion.·. It is likely that church membership, which is strongly associated with the various aspects .of Armenian ethnic identity, is also strongly associated with attitudes towards intermarriage. For example, most of those who opposed intermarriage were Armenian Apostolics, while the remainder were

Armenian Evangelicals.· None. of the Armenian Catholics or inembers. of other churches opposed mixed marriages, ·although a nutnber still preferred endogamous marriages.

Eleven of the interviewees were intermarried. None of these objected to their children intermarrying, although two wanted their children to marry Armenians. Roth gave the reason that, by doing so, their children would help to maintain the number of Armenians in the world. Only two of these 11 respondents had children who had married and in both cases the children had intermarried. In all, nine of the interviewed respondents with grown children had children who had married non-Armenians. In only two of these cases did the respondents state that they had openly opposed these marriages to the noh-Armenians.

Although first generation immigrants are usually the most vqci­ ferous and adamant in their objections to intermarriage, the findings for the Armenians indicate that the present attitudes are sufficiently strong to ensure a respectable'level of endogamy for some time to come. As observed for other ethnic groups, as well as for Armenian communities.elsewhere in the -292-

world, these attitudes are likely to weaken in time, especially as the second generation grows up in Australia. Such a "softening" in attitudes will almost assuredly be accompanied by, if indeed not attribute to an increase in the ra.te of intermarriage. Whether or not this will eventually reach an assimilation point is uncertain; if a.parallel can be drawn with the American Armenian community (Nelson, 1954b), which is in its fourth generation, it can be predicted that such a point will probably not be reached for at least two more generations.

THE MAINTENANCE OF ARMENIAN HISTORICAL AND ETHNIC CONSCIOUSNESS IN SYDNEY: · THE POLITICAL CONTROVERSY AND THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL RELATIONS

The means by which Armenian historical and ethnic consciousness are being perpetuated in Sydney cannot be understood without .first outlining the principal differences of the Armenian political ideologies. Although technically there are three Armenian political parties, in .fact there are basically two opposing viewpoints, those of the Dashnaks and the anti­ Dashnaks. 1 In Sydney the Dashnaks are the only organized political·· party; the anti-Dashnaks are recognized through their opposition to the Dashnaks' policies and actions. Th,is does not imply, however, that all·Armenians who are not Dashnaks or pro-Dashnak are automatically anti-Dashnaks. There are considerable numbers of Armenians in Sydney who do not identify with any Armenian ideology. This is especially true of the Armenian Catholics and, to a lesser extent, of the Armenian Evangelicals. 2 · Nevertheless, most of those active in the Apostolic community have been drawn into one camp or the other because of the strong views held both for and against the Dashnaks.

The establishment of the Dashnak Party was covered briefly in Chapter Two. To reiterate the main points, it was the political party which

1 Atamian (1955: 331) feels that the anti-Dashnak parties are not true political parties but exist only through their opposition to the Dashnaks. He also feels that.the role of these parties in the Armenian community can only be understood if they are not considered ·to be political in nature • .2 The Dashnak/anti-Dashnak controversy is largely confined to members of the Armenian Apostolic Church. -293-

was largely responsible for the only significant Armenian opposition to the Ottoman deportations arid massacres and was the party which was in power during the ill-fated period of Armenian independence following World War I. Because of its prominent place in the resurgence of Armenian national consciousness during this period, .the party became almost a "government in exile" after the Soviet takeover in 1921. It also provided a reference group from this time for the Armenians of the Diaspora, symbolizing their

n~tional unity (Atamian, 1955: 271-273).

The. specific stance of the Dashnaks revolves around the "Armenian 'Question", which they see as being unresolved until a free and independent Armenia is established, which occupies not only present-day Soviet Armenia, ·· but also the former Armenian lands of Eastern Turkey. In pursuing this goal, the Dashnaks. have openly oppos.ed the Soviet domination of Armenia and what they perceive as Soviet influence on the Apostolic Church, whose head resides in Etchmiadzin, Soviet Armenia. Dashnak opposition to the latter eventually led to a split in the Church and the establishment of a semi­ autonomous "Dashnak" Church under the Armenian patriarch whose seat is located in Lebanon at Antillas. Technically, however, this Church still owes its allegiance to the mother Church in Etchmiadzin.l

The anti-Dashnaks, notably those who are members of, or who ·sympathize with the Ramgavar Party,·or those who are adherents to its views, have an opposing stance, which is also rooted in the history and development of this party. Unlike the Dashnaks, they have always been anti-rev

1 Apparently, in 1975, an agreement was reached between the Dashnaks and the Mother Church where the Dashnaks agreed to modify their stance. For the time being they would set aside their primary goal of obtaining freedom and independence for Armenia and would join forces with the Mother Church to press for the return of the Armenian provinces held by Turkey. In other words, they agreed to temporarily support Armenia as it is today in order t.o join with other Armenian groups in trying to achieve the return of the lands taken from them by Turkey. According to one informant, such agreement had not been achieved or accepted by the members of the Armenian community of Sydney. -294-

conservative leadership and wealthy strata of the Turkish Armenian population, whose interests lay in maintaining the status quo and thus protecting their own positions within Ottoman society. Likewise, when Armenia gained independence in 1919, the leaders of this group refused to cooperate with the struggling Dashnakgovernment and in no small measure contributed to the short life of the Republic (Atamian, 1955: 271-273).

Because they produced no national heros in the fight for Armenian indepen.dence, or other figures with whom Armenians could identify, the anti­ Dashnaks do not in any significant way represent Armenian "National Consciousness". Their principal 'l'ais.on d'et'l'e is their .open opposition to the Dashnaks and Dashnak goals; partly because of the above historical reasons and partly because they believe inaccepting the political realities of the present-day situation. The anti-Dashnaks contend that the "Armenian Question" has been solved, asserting that the national aspirations and welfare of the Armenian.s have r~ached the l>est solution under the Soviets. They further contend that an independent. Armenia is unrealistic, since it could not survive on its own and, for this reason, Armenians should not strive for such independence but should be content with thepresent arrange­ ment under the Soviets.

At the same time they also support the Mother Church of Etchmiadzin and consider the Dashnak church to be 1-llegal since it fails to give its full allegiance to the Supreme Catholicos. They also contend that the political power which is presently in the hands .of the Dashnaks should be held by the MOther Church in Etchmiadzin.

This pro-Soviet stance of the anti-Dashnaks has often led the Dashnaks to accuse them of being Communists, or, at the very least, controlled by the Communists. However, the most significant anti-Dashnak group (the Ramgavars) has never espoused an active interest in Communism and its members and supporters cannot be considered to be Communist sympathizers. 1 On the other hand, the ai_Iti-Dashnaks accuse the Dashnaks of being socialists because

1 The Hunchaks, who are anti-Dashnak, are Communistic, but they are a negligible segment of contemporary international Armenian political life (Atamian, 1955: 330). -295-

historically they represented the poorer strata of Turkish Armenian society and attempted to establish the Armenian Republic along socialist lines (Atamian, 1955: 230-232). In reality, however, the Dashnaks are more nationalistic than they are socialistic.

Within the Armenian community of Sydney, the Dashnaks and their supporters are probably in the majority, 1 although there are only two or three local groups of party members actually established. 2 The greater _proportion of the pro-Dashnaks are not active party members, but only Dashnak sympathizers. Because of this small number of actual members, the Sydney Dashnaks are unable to elect an area central committee, but have a local co-ordinating committee, which arranges and oversees local Dashnak activities and functions. Nevertheless, they and their adherents represent one of the most active elements in the Sydney Armenian community and have been instrumental in the establishment of three of the major organizations: the Armenian Relief Society, the Armenian Sports Club and the Armenian Cultural Society. All three are satellite organizations of the Dashnak Party.3 The former two organizations are international in character and each has two branches in Sydney, one in Willoughby and one in West Sydney. The Armenian Relief Society is a welfare organization whose membership consists solely of women. Its ties with the Dashnaks go back to its formation as the Armenian Red Cross during the two years of Armenian independence. Although its purpose today is to render assistance to Armenians in need, it also supports the aims of the Dashnak Party.

The Armenian Homenetmen Sports Club is the physical culture side of the Dashnaks. It tends to exert its influence over the young Armenians through sporting activities, scouts, and so on. l Since the majority of the Sydney Armenians came from the Middle East and the majority of the Middle Eastern Armenians are Dashnaks or pro-Dashnaks (Atamian, 1955: 441), it can be safely assumed that the majority of the Armenians in Sydney are also Dashnaks or pro-Dashnaks. 2 See Appendix III for a description of the Dashnak Party organization. 3 'The Dashnak Party does not actually function in any way except as a political party; that is, the party itself does not establish organizations but it does support them. In reality, these satellite organizations are independent of the Dashnaks, but, at the same time, are made up primarily of pro-Dashnak members. -296-

The third satellite organization, the Armenian Cultural Society,- is not international. It has no official connection with the Dashnaks or any other overseas organization, but is very pro-Dashnak as most of its members and its leadership are Dashnaks or Dashnak sympathizers.

These three organizations together support four Armenian Saturday schools in Sydney which, combined, have around 500 students. The Cultural and Relief Societies both have functioning youth groups to prepare the young Armenians for later membership. Although the stated purposes of these organizations are different, the principal aim of all three is to ensure the continuation of the Armenians of the Diaspora as a separate national group. For this reason, they strive to foster the Armenian language, culture and "national consciousness".

There is a fourth pro~Dashnak organization in Sydney - the Armenian National Conunittee - which, in reality, is an arm of the Dashnak Party. Its purpose is to support the Dashnak cause through the publication of a regular newsletter in the Armenian conununity. Although it originates from the headquarters (Bureau level) of the party (see Appendix III) and is therefore intemat.ional in character, it has no chain of conunand or hierarchy like that of the party itself.

·. Iri addition to these pro-Dashnak organizations, there is a fifth organization in Sydney which co-operates with the Dashnaks, but is not in any way officially or unofficially connected with them. This organization, the Near-East Armenian Mutual Society, is basically a loca~ club centred in South Central Sydney. Its membership consists almost entirely of individuals who were born in a particular quarter of Cairo in Egypt. 1 The activities of this society are generally restricted to its members, which serves to make it marginal to the conununity as a whole.

1 The roots of the Sydney organization, however, go back to the Armenian Near-East Society which originated in Egypt after World War I. Its purpose was to bring together the Armenian orphans of the war and to settle them in one quarter of Cairo. It is the children of these orphans who have established the organization in Sydney. -297-

Opposed to the pro-Dashnak organizations and their adherents are the Armenian Apostolic Church, its satellite organization, the Armenian Historical Society, and the Armenian General Benevolent Union. Of these three, the Church must be considered the most anti-Dashnak. Although the roots of this opposition are found in the relationship of the Dashnaks to the Soviets, as discussed earlier, the polarization of the Dashnaks and anti-Dashnaks in Sydney was brought about largely by a series of events and political intrigue which occurred in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Without going into detail, the principal events were centred around what the supporters of the Church saw as an attempted Dashnak takeover of the Church which, they felt, would result in a switch of allegiance from Etchmiadzin to the Dashnak Patriarch in Lebanon. To prevent this from happening, the presiding Church Council refused membership status to a number of Armenians who they felt were Dashnaks.l They also changed the Church constitution to allow the Church Council, rather than the Church members, to control all Church property. The Dashnaks and many of the Church members considered these moves to be an usurpation of the control of the Sydney Church by the Soviet controlled Mother Church and a suspension of the tradi­ tional democratic process within the Church. 2 Events reached a climax in 1970, wheq a two hour brawl among 400 parishioners erupted during a meeting in the Church. With this display of open violence, the rift between the two sides became firmly established.

This conflict had some significant side-effects. One was the establishment of the Austral-Armenian Association. This organization was formed by a group of Church members who took the Church to court for not allowing eligible Armenians to join, i.e., those who the Church Council felt were Dashnaks. When these members lost the court case they left the Church and formed the Austral-Armenian Association in protest. Although supposedly

1 . Technically, anyone baptised into the Apostolic Church is eligible to become a member and to vote for the Church Council. 2 Prior to this time all Church property was technically owned by the .Church members who controlled it through their votes. Once it passed into the hands of the Diocese, however, the members no longer had a voice in its administration or disposition. It was then under the direct control of the Mother Church through the Diocese. -298-

consisting of persons free of all political connections, because of their opposition to the Church Council the members of this organization tend to side with the pro-Dashnaks.

During this same period another group, consisting mainly of Indian Armenians, also left the Church and for a similar reason. Feeling that the Church Council was mismanaging Church funds, this group took the Council to court. It also lost its case and since then these Indian Armenians have not been allowed to rejoin the Church. However, being apolitical with respect to Armenian politics they have not tended to move into the pro­ Dashnak camp, but have "washed their hands" of the entire controversy.

The Armenian Historical Society has been referred to as a satellite organization of the Church. The reason for this has nothing to do with any official connections between the two but simply the fact that the members have been, and are, very.strong supporters of the Church Council and its actions. Its pro-Church and anti-Dashnak stance is partly explained by.the fact that its leadership, and most of the members of this organization, are fairly well...:off "Eastern Armenians" who tend to favour the Soviet solution to the Armenian Question~

Likewise, the Armenian General Benevolent Union (A.G.B.U.) is not a satellite organization of the Church, but is in this camp because, in Sydney, its members are predominantly anti-Dashnak or neutral. The reasons for this stance are twofold. First, its members were initially, and still are, the more wealthy Armenians and therefore have tended to lean away from the Dashnaks. This is as true in the international organization as it is in the Sydney branch, although both are officially neutral with regard to Armenian politics. Second, the branch in Sydney suffered a power struggle similar to that which occurred in the Church. At a time when the inter..;. national headquarters in New York was contemplating investing a considerable sum of money in an A.G.B.U. centre in Sydney, there was an apparent attempt on the part of the Dashnaks to gain control of the local A.G.B.U. leadership. When this became known the money was immediately withdrawn in order to keep -299-

it out of Dashnak hands.l The A.G.B.]J. headquarters has since been reluctant to send money for such a centre for fear of a similar occurrence. This has caused an angry reaction against the Dashnaks from the majority of the A.G.B.U. membership who have since formed closer ties with the Church.

The other Armenian organizations are either neutral in this con~ troversy or else they lie outside it. Those which are neutral are the Armenian Rugby Union Club, which consists mainly of Iranian and Indian Armenians who have attended the Armenian College in Calcutta; the Armenian Students Association, madeup of Armenian tertiary students; the Armenian

Graduates Association, consisting of those with university degrees~ The

Rugby Union Club is apolitical and is primarily concerned ~ith maintaining former school ties through regular sporting events. The Armenian Students Association and the Armenian Graduates Association, on the other hand, ~re interested in the Armenian political situation, but consciously take a neutral stance in order to alleviate some of the friction within the community c~used by the controversy.

Those Armenian organizations and institutions which are outside this controversy are those of the other two Armenian Churches in Sydney. Both have relatively small congregations (Armenian Catholic Church: 160 families; Armenian Evangelical Church: 30 families) which usually participate only in their own Church and its organizations. 2 Neither has a great deal of contact with the larger Apostolic community and its organizations and for this reason these groups lie somewhat outside the mainstream of Armenian community life in Sydney. They are most aptly viewed. as separate sub- communities within the greater Sydney Armenian community.

Diagram 6.1 illustrates the relative social and political positions

1 One informant stated that a cheque was actually in the hands of the local A.G.B.U. head who sent it back to the New York headquarters because of the attempted takeover. 2 .The Armenian Catholic Church has three affiliated organizations - the Armenian Catholic Ladies Auxiliary, the Armenian Catholic Benevolent Society and the Armenian Catholic Club. Likewise, the Armenian Evangel­ ical Church has two affiliated organizations, the Christian Endeavour Youth Group and a women's auxiliary. Diagram 6~1 Political and Social Structure of the Sydney Armenian Community

Anti-Dashnak Neutral Pro-Dashnak

Apostolic Community Armenian Historical Society Armenian Graduates I Association Austral- Homenetmen Armenian Armenian Sports Relief Armenian Associaticm Club Society Apostolic Armenian Church I Students ' Association Dashnak Armenian Near East Party - National Armenian Mutual· Committee I General w Armenian Society 0 Benevolent 0 Rugby Armenian I Union Union Cultural Society

Armenian Catholic and Evangelical .· Churches and Organizations

------Connotes Satellite Organization Connotes Official Attachment -301-

of the organizations described above. It also provides a basic outline for the social and political organization of the community. The boundaries of these groupings of formal organizations represent the deep rifts within the Sydney Armenian community. In general, most social relations of individuals are confined to the organizations of the particular grouping with which they identify. A good example of this is provided by the 17 interviewed respondents who activ~ly participate in the Armenian Cultural Society. Only one of them participates in an organization outside the pro- Dashnak. grouping and this is the Armenian Rugby Union Club, which is neutral. A similar situation is found for those who participate in organizations in other groupings.

There is, nevertheless, some "cross membership" and participation of individuals in organizations of two or more of the groupings.! Such linkages mean that each of the groups, at least within the religious sub­ communities, is connected to each of the others by at least a few individuals, thereby providing some measure of integration for the community as a whole. This prevents the separate groupings from developing into distinct and separate communities.

The detrimental effect of the internal rift in the Sydney Armenian community is obvious, in that being a relatively small community numerically it prohibits the full realiZation of the community's potential, both socially and culturally. Also, it has r:esulted in many Armenians "opting out" of participation in community activities, or even attempting to rid themselves of their Armenian identity, because they do not want to become involved in what they consider to be "petty bickering which should have been left overseas". Nevertheless, it also has a constructive side to.it, and one which has been recognized in other Armenian communities where an almost

1 This is especially true of the participation in community activities of those who are termed. "occasional members". There are many persons who are members of an organization in one grouping and attend functions of organizations in other groupings, even though they would not join these other organizations for political reasons. The rate of cross­ participation, i.e., participation by the· same individual in organizations in two different groupings, is estimated to be about 20 per cent. -302-

identical controversy has occurred (Atamian, 1955; Kernaklian, 1967). It seems to keep in sharp focus Armenian national identity and helps to maintain a "core" of high ethnicity by taking Armenian ethnicity out of the realm of conflict between Armenian and host society culture and into the area of intra­ ethnic conflict. The controversy accomplishes this by providing both sides with some ideological justification or rationale for maintaining their Armenian ethnic identity. For example, on the Dashnak side it is argued that, without the maintenance of ethnic identity while in dispersion, a "free" Armenia as an independent nationwill never become a reality. Conversely, the anti-Dashna~s claim that their ethnic identity must be maintained in order .to counteract the more revolutionary Dashnak aims and thus pr~serve the present situation of Soviet Armenia.

In the two year period since the completion of the Armenian Survey in July 1977, the Dashnaks and their sympathizers - in contrast to the anti­ Dashnak groups - appear to have consolidated their position in Sydney and to have increased their efforts to insure both the preservation of Armenian identity and the historical consciousness concerning their "Cause". They are today the principal force behind the Armenian identity maintenance efforts of the Sydney community. Not only have they increased the membership of their Armenian Saturday schools but also have established an Armenian Cultural Centre which has an ever-growing library of works on the Armenian people.

They have also increased their political control over their membership and over prominent Armenians in the community whose positions or jobs are largely dependent upon the patronage of other Armenians. In this way the Dashnaks insure that. their cause is kept before the Sydney Armenians at all times and that it receives the broadest support.

The internal controversy, however, appears to be declining in importance over time. This is partially because the pro-Dashnaks are considered to be much more numerous - constituting the great majority of Armenians in Sydney - and are much better organized, and partially because the anti-Dashnaks are tending to become more assimilated into Australian society. For the latter, who believe in accepting the reality of the -303-

present-day situation, becoming firmly established in Australia is much more important than placing great emphasis on, and making great efforts to preserve their identity to the degree that one day they can return to a free . and independent Armenia - a goal which few of these Armenians have. For this reason their· interest in the internal controversy appears to be waning.

At least for the foreseeable future, it can be fairly safely pre­ dicted that Armenian "National Consciousness" and historical !llemory will remain quite strong in the Sydney connnunity. It is even possible that it will increase in strength·due to the freedom which the Dashnaks and their sympathizers have to push their cause here in Australia.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE TRENDS

· Part of the heritage of the Armenian people relates to the ways and. means by which they have. struggled to maintain their ethnic group identity against great odds. In this endeavour they have so far been largely successful, especially considering the massive efforts which have been made to destroy them. Those who have settled in Australia. share this heritage and the majority have accepted as an artiaZ.e of faith that, if they are to maintain their identity, a similar struggle must be carried on here as well. In some ways, the increased freedom which. many have gained through migration to Australia poses· an even greater threat to their continued existence as . a distinct entity than hitherto encountered. No longer is their identity constantly reinforced by the traditional relationship of Moslem to Christian, as was the case in most of the Middle East, or by their periodic persecution by dominant peoples. Consequently, even greater efforts are required in Australia if their identity is to be perpetuated in future generations.

This.chapter has described the changes which have occurred in the three areas of Armenian life of greatest concern to their identity main­ :tenance .- continuation of Armenian as a functional language, the restriction of marriages to within the group and the perpetuation of sustained interest in the Armenian ethnic and historical heritage. Although the duration of residence of these innnigrants in Australia is. short, with the second generation only now developing, the changes noted can still be taken to indicate likely future trends. -304-

With regard to Armenian language maintenance, the efforts made by the more active ele.ments of the community - notably the pro-Dashnaks - are increasing as the second generation expands.. The fact that a good portion of the young Armenians are today receiving language instruction in Saturday schools means that they will have at least an adequate grounding in .their lll()ther tongue. For the second generation, then, it is highly likely that Armenian will remain a functional language, even though largely restricted to the home or to Armenian gatherings. However, as mentioned earlier for Armenian-Americans, even with a major effort by Armenian schools and organ­ izations, there is every chance that· by the third generation in Australia . the Armenian language will cease being in common use and will be supplanted by· English - even within the home •.

The rate of intermarriage among Armenians in Australia appears to be on the increase, reflecting a common trend noted for Armenian minorities in a number of other countries. At present, the rate for the children of the Survey respondents is running at two and one half times that of their parents' generation and seven times that of their grandparents' generation. Sinc.e intermarriage tends to weaken the ties between the intermarried individuals and the community, as well as to indicate a greater tendency towards assimilation into the. greater Australian society, such an increi:lse in intermarriage will very likely be the greatest threat to the maintenance of Armenian identity in Australia in the future.

At least for the first generation Armenian immigrants, the third . . .I . factor - sustained interest in their ethnic and historical consciousness - is apparently becoming of greater significance in Armenian identity.mainten­ ance, even though the means by which this interest is being perpetuated is apparently changing. Although the internal political controversy in the Sydney community still exerts a profound influence on social relations, the strengthening of the predominant pro-Dashnak faction and the-gradual weaken­ ing of the much smaller anti-Dashnak faction have reduced the importance of this controversy as the focal point for the maintenance of interest in the ·Armenian heritage. Almost as a reaction to this lessening of tension between the two factions, the Dashnaks have now concentrated their efforts on pursuing and publicizing the 11Arn;1enian Cause" and in consolidating their hold over the pro-Dashnak faction in Sydney. -305-

Overall, the great majority of Armenians in Sydney today, in particular the Dashnaks and their supporters, are very concerned with the maintenance of their group identity and their survival as a distinct ethnic group. In those areas where they are able, they are striving to ensure that their identity is passed on to their Australian-born or Australian-raised children. The fact that, among the most active members of the community, their efforts to perpetuate Armenian identity are actually being increased over time will undoubtedly ensure that at least a "core" group of Armenians with "high ethnicity" will be present 'in Australia for many decades to come. -306-

CHAPTER VII

SOCIAL PARTICIPATION AND SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT

INTRODUCTION

Migration.disrupts an.immigrant's social environment, often reducing his sphere of active social relations (Eisenstadt, 1952a: 373). To become socially adjusted in the host country, the immigrant must form relationships with members of his.own ethnic group, of other ethnic groups, of the host society, or with a combination of the three.

Social adjustment may take place at the secondary group level but, without the eventual establishment on a large scale of primary group relations in the various host society institutions, institutional integration and eventual structural assimilation are unlikely to occur. 1 When such relationships are formed, the assimilation of these immigrants becomes much more probable (Gordon, 1964; Zubrzycki, 1960c: 15).

Social contacts with the host society may be either direct or indirect. Indirect contact by means of newspapers, radio and television - described as "non-personal" social participation - can help the immigrant to adjust to the host society, but rarely leads to structural assimilation. Direct contacts are those of a ''personal" nature, although they may be con­ fined to secondary group relations. The formation of primary group relationships with host society members is largely dependent on the "orient­ ation" of the immigrant's social participation; towards the immigrant community, another immigrant group or the host society. In reality, immigrants may participate in any combination of the three at the same time

1 .Primary group has been defined by Hoult (1969: 248) as a relatively small group characterized by members who maintain intimate, co-operative and usually face-to-face relations. The family is the main primary group. Secondary groups, on the other hand, are those characterized by members who, at most, maintain relatively limited, formal and impersonal relations with one another (Hoult, 196.9: 285). -307-

and form primary group relationships with members of one or all communities (Breton, 1970: 132).

This orientation is largely dependent on two factors, the internal .social cohesion of the immigrant community and the strength of the individual immigrant's ethnic identity. The first is a function of the community's social organization, which may or may not generate forces which tend to restrict social participation to other ethnic group members. Those commun- ities consisting essentially of.networks of interpersonal relations with no formal organizations are.assumed to have the greatest numbers establishing institutional ties with the host community. At the other extreme is the ethnic co~unity which can perform all the services required by its members, i.e., is "institutionally complete'' (Breton, 1970). In the latter cases all social interaction is not necessarily confil\~d to other communitymembers, although there is definite evidence that such institutional completeness does serve to constrain a good part of this interaction (Breton, 1970: 143; Martin, 1972a: 123).

The second factor, although influenced by the first, is more a function of the immigrant's background and attitude towards his ethnicity. If the group is highly cohesive and the. indivi4ual strongly identified with his ethnic group he will probably confine his primary group relations to his fellow immigrants. If the reverse is true, he will tend to enter primary groups in the host society. The extent to which the latter occurs is usually taken· to indicate the relative speed at which an immigrant ·group is becoming "structurally assimilated" into the host society (Price, 1969: 218).

Initially limiting social relations to other immigrants does not prevent eventual assimilation. Such a course may even serve to facilitate it. To quote Fitzpatrick (1966: 8):

"If people are torn too rapidly away from the traditional cultural framework of their lives, and thrown too quickly as strangers into a cultural environment which is un­ familiar, the danger of social disorganization is very great. They need the traditional social group in which they are at ho~e, in which they find psychological satis­ faction and security, in order to move with confidence -308-

toward interaction with the larger society. The immigrant community is the beachhead from which they move with strength."

"Personal" social participation may take place both within and outside formal institutions. Immigrants may confine their primary group social relations to informal associations or they may participate mainly in formal organizations and institutions. Most participate in both, although individuals obviously exhibit different patterns, as well as different "intensities" of participation.1 Consequently, to understand the role of social participation in the immigrant adjustment process it is necessary to examine these patterns at the individual, sub-group and group levels.

The principal aim of this chapter is to determine the patterns of Armenian social participation in Sydney, its orientation and the extent to which the Armenians have become socially adjusted to Australian society. In accomplishing this, two main areas of social participation are examined - friendship patterns and community participation. 2 Other areas of social participation are considered briefly in Appendix V. Only "personal" social participation is considered here, with special emphasis being given to primary group relations.

BACKGROUND FACTORS AFFECTING ARMENIAN SOCIAL PARTICIPATION IN AUSTRALIA

The patterns of Armenian social life and the structure of the Armenian communities, especially in the Arab Middle East, have their roots in the massacres and deportations of the World War I period. Before this time the traditional social unit of the majority of the Armenians - those in Turkey - was the extended family and the basis of Armenian social organ­ ization was either self-sufficient local village communities, or fairly tight...;.knit urban communities. With the massacres and dispersions the

1 The intensity of participation is a function of the frequency of inter­ action. 2 I am using Gans' (1962: 106) concept of community participation here; that is, social participation in formal organizations and associations. -309-

traditional community and family bonds were broken and most viable social organization ceased to exist; this required the refugees, who were largely strangers to each other, to develop new patterns of social interaction and integration.

The massacres and dispersions also had a social·"homogenizing" effect. The traditional village or community loyalty was replaced by a loyalty to and identification withthe Armenian people in general. Suffer- ing similar experiences at the hands of the Turks, and adjusting to new cultures and societies, q.dded to this homogenizing effect. In reestab- lishing their social li:fe in dispersion they developed organizations and associations which transcended the earlier local loyalties, with the result that many became international in both character and scope. 1 Many of the.se organizations grew out of the Armenian political parties or were organizations related to the Armenian Church, while others developed from organizations initially established to aid the resettlement of Armenian refugees. The Armenian General Benevolent Union and the Armenian Near East Society, described in the previous chapter, are examples of these. By the eve of World Wq.r II, these international organizations had branches in almost every major Diaspora community.

Being international, it was a simple pro·cess to establish branches in Australia, resulting in a "transplantation" of the basic social structure of the overseas communities. This structure, however, has been modified by local conditions and the fact that the Sydney Armenians originated in a variety of overseas communities where patterns of social life differed. i I While facilitating rapid reestablishment of social life in Australia ! this "transplantation" of the overseas community structure has meant that l the divisions present in these.communities also have occurred in Australia. I 1 As shown in the previous chapter, such divisions have become extremely l l important in the development of the social structure of the Sydney community.

Il 1 These organizations are very Similar.to.the "Folk" and "Supra-Folk" organizations which the Southern European immigrants developed in Australia (Price, 1963: 242-248). -310-

In addition, social participation, and especially social adjust­ ment, have been strongly influenced by the fact that the Armenian immigrants: were almost universally urban dwellers accustomed to maintaining urban "networks" of social relations; were a Christian people; were not concen­ trated in any particular occupational category or categories; in large part knew a little English before arrival; arrived mainly within. the 15 years preceding the Survey. All of these characteristics can be assumed to have positively affected their social adjustment, both within the Armenian community and within Australian society.

FRIENDSHIP PATTERNS IN AUSTRALIA

Friendship patterns have usually been examined to determine the extent of primary group contact between immigrants and host society members (Chimbos, 1972; Choi, 1970; Encel et aZ., 1972). The nature of these relations has not always been explored. For example, Choi (1970: 296-297) and Martin (1965: 31) both noted that when immigrants say they have "Australian friends" the relationship may only be that of mere "acquaintances" who have taken an interest in the immigrants, but whom immigrants have taken as symbolic links with Australian society.

In the Armenian Survey an attempt was made to overcome this difficulty in determining the nature of friendship relations by examining .only the three most intimate friends. This approach was also felt to provide .a better understanding of social participation at the primary group level, while taking into account the variability in the frequency of con­ tact with close friends, the places where contact usually takes place, and so on. This in turn, should help to show the orientation of social adjust- ment at the primary group level.

Selection of Intimate Friends in Sydney

The mode and patterns of Armenian migration have profoundly influenced the selection of intimate friends in Australia. Over half (53 per cent) of the interviewed respondents' three closest friends came from the same country as the respondent, while almost two-thirds were known before migration (Table 7.1). Whether or not these friends are of the same country -:311-

Table 7.1

Influence of Country Background on Friendship Patterns in Australia

Friends Originated Respondent Region/Country in Same Country Knew Friends of Last Residence as Respondent Before Migration (N=) %2 (N=) %2

Arab Middle East Egypt 713 (57) 80 (34) 48 Syria 174 (13) 76 (11) 65 Lebanon 39 (21) 54 (14) 36 Jordan (+ Israel) . 324 (9) 28 (7) 22 Iraq 45 (2) 50 (0) 0 Other Arab ME 116 (2) 18 (3) 27

Sub-Total 174 (104) 60 (72) 41

Non-Arab Middle East Turkey 9 (6) 67 (3) 33 Iran 42 (32) 76 (7) 17 Soviet Armenia (+ USSR) 3 (0) 0 (0) 0

Sub-Total 54 (38) 70 (10) 19

South, East and Southeast Asia India 12 (4) . 33 (6) 50 Indonesia 15 (2) 13 (2) 13 Other Asia 6 (O) 0 (0) 0

Sub-Total 33 (6) 18 (8) 24

Europe and North America 12 (1) 8 (3) 25 Other Countries 6 (O) 0 (0) 0

Total 279 (149) 53 (90) 32

1 Includes all intimate friends, including non-Armenians, given by interviewed respondents. 2 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point. 3 One respondent gave only two friends and one stated he had no intimate friends. 4 One respondent gave only two intimate friends. 5 One respondent gave only one intimate friend. 6 One respondent had no close friends and one gave only two intimate friends. -312-

group is primarily a function of the size of the country groupin Australia. 1 The larger the group the more likely that they all came from the same country and were known previously. The reason is obvious. The sheer size of the larger groups, which usually originated in one community of the particular source country, provided both more persons known overseas and a greater .number of fellow countrymen with whom friendships could be formed in Australia.

Almost three-quarters (74 per cent) of those interviewed stated that their three intimate friends·were Armenians, while only .a sixth reported having·any Australians as intimate friends. A tenth (10/95) had mainZy non-Armenian intimate friends. In general, those with non-Armenian friends had previously lived in Western count:des or countries which had been territories of Western powers (Table 7.2), and all spoke fluent English. This contrasted with those who had only Armenian intimate friends, only 22 per cent of whom spoke f11Jent English. No other factors were found to be significantly related to whether or not a respondent had non~Armenian intimate friends.

Armenian friendship patterns have not appreciably changed over time in Australia - at least with respect to these intimate .friends, indicating that the friendships made either during the first few years in Australia,. or else transferred from the immigrant's last country of residence, or both, have .tended to remain fairly stable (Table 7.3).

The Nature of Intimate Friendships

The nature of these intimate friendships can be determined by · examin:l,ng three aspects of the friendship relationship: where the respondent first met the friend, how often they now meet anq where they usually meet. Most Armenian friends not known overseas were first encountered either at

1 ·Ranking the numerical size (number of Survey respondents) of the country groups against the percentage of each group whose intimate friends came from the same country as the respondent gave a Spearman's Rank Coefficient of .65. Applying the student's t test of significance, student's t = 2.93, df = 12, significant at .01 level. Table 7.2 Influence ef Ethnic Origin on Friendship Patterns in Australia

. • 3 Have Intimate All or Mo~t: Intimate Friends Have Austral~an Friends From Intimate Fr1ends Region/Country N=l . Are All Armenian Intimate Friend(s) ·ntherEthnic Group are Non..;..Armenian of Last Residence (N=) %2 __ (N=) %2 . (N_::=j4 %2 (N=) %2 ~------~~~~~- Arab Middle East Egypt 24 (19) 40 (3) 13 (2) 8 (0) 0 Syria 6 (6) 100 (0) 0 (O) 0 (0) 0 Lebanon 13 (10) 77 (0) 0 (3) 23 (0) 0 Jordan (+Israel) 11 (7) 64 (2) 18 (3) 27 (2) 18 Iraq 2 (1) 50 (I) 50. (0) 0 (.1) 50 Other Arab ME 4. (3) 75 (0) 0 (1) 25 (1). 25 Sub-Total 60 (46) 77 (6) 10 (9) 15 (4) 7 Non-Arab Middle East Turkey 3 · (3) 100 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 Iran 14 (13) 93 (1) 7 (0) 0 (0) 0 I w Soviet Armenia (+ USSR) 1 (1) 100 (0) 0 (0) · 0 ~0) 0 ..... w Sub-Total · 18 (17) 94 (1) 6 (()) 0 (0) 0 I

South 2 . East and Southeast Asia India 4 (1) 25 (2) 50 (2) 50 (2) . 50 Indonesia 5 (2) 40 (2) 40 . (2) 40 (2) 40 Other Asia 2 (2) 100 (0) - ~0 (0) 0 _:_(0) 0 Sub-Total 11 (5) 45 (4) 36 (4) 36 (4) 36 E:urope and North America 4 . (1) . 25 (3) 75 (1) 25 (1) 25 Other Countries 2 . (l) 50 (1) 50 (1) 50 (1) ~0 ,Total 95 (70) 74 (15) 16 (15) 16 (10} ll 1 'Excludes two interviewed respondents who stated they had no close friends. 2 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage_point. 3 Four respondents stated they had two Australian friends and eleven stated they had only one. 4 Five respondents with intimate friends from other ethnic groups also had Australian intimate friends. -314-

Table 7.3

Stability of Armenian Friendship Patterns in Australia

One or Two "of None of Three Closest Three Closest ·Three Closest Duration of 1 Friends Are Friends Are Friends Are Armenians Residence Armenians ·Armenians (N=)· %3 (N=) %3 (N=) %3

Less than 10 years 42 (31) 74 (9) 21 (2) 5 10 years or more 53 (39) 74 (13) 25 (1) 2

Total 95 (70) 74 (22) 23 (3) 3

1 Combining columns 2 and 3, x2 = .0007, df = 1, not sign. at .05 " level. 2 Excludes two interviewed respondents who stated they had no close friends. 3 All percentages arerounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

home or at Armenian social or religious gatherings (Table 7.4). Only seven per cent were initially encountered at work, which could be expected as very few have worked with othe~ Armenians. This contrasted with where they first met their Australian intimate frien.Q.s or those from other ethnic groups. Half were first encountered at work, while just over a third were·met at non-Armenian social or religious gatherings~ This is not surprising, as work place is where most Armenians have had the most sustained and frequent contact with Australians and other ethnic group members.

Contact with Armenian·intimate friends, or those from other ethnic groups, was more frequent: than with intimate. Australian friends. For example, three-fifths met or visited the former at least weekly, while only 43 per 'cent met the latter as often. Frequency of daily contact with non­ Armenian friends, however, was twice that with Armenian friends (Table 7.5) - Table z.{t Place Respondent First Encountered Intimate Friends

Armenian Australian Friends From Total Non- Place First N=l Friends Friends Total Met Other Ethnic·Groues Armenian Friends %2 (N=) %2. (N=') %2 (N=) . %~ .... (N=) %2

Friend's Place 34 (29) 12 {4) 21 (1) 6 (5) 14 12 Respondent's Place 22 (21) 9 (0) 0 (1) 6 (1) 3 8 Club 16 (.13) 5 (3) 16 (0) 0 (3) 8 6 Church 27 (23) 9 (3) 16 (1) 6 (4) 11 10 Work 35 (17) 7 (9) 47 (9) 53 (18) 50 13 Party or Function 25 (25} 10 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 9 Relative's Place 13 (13) 5 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 5

Airport/On Ship/Hostel 9 (9) 4 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 3 I w 1-' Other 8 (6) . 2 (0) 0 (.2) 12 (2) 6 3 1./1 I Knew Overseas 90 . (87) 36 (0) 0 (3) 18 (3) . 8 32

Total 279 (243) wo· . (19) 100 (17) 100 (36) 100 100

1 Includes all intimate friends given by interviewed.respondents. 2 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point. Table 7. 5 · Frequency of Contact with Intimate Friends

Armenian Australian Friends From Total Non- Frequency of N=l Total Friends Friends Other Ethnic GrouEs Armenian GrouEs %2 Contact (N=) %2 (N=) %2 (N=) %2 (N=) %2

Daily 34 (26) 11 (3) 16 (5) 29 (8) 22 12 Few Times a Week 49 (45) 19 (2) 11 (2) 12 (4) 11 18 At Least Weekly 82 (76) 31 (3) 16 (3) 18 (6) 17 29 Few Times a Month 51 (46) 19 (2) 11 (3) 18 (5) 14 18 At Least Monthly 31 (24) 10 (5) 26 (2) 12 (7) 19 11 Few Times a Year 32 (26) 11 (4) 21 (2) 12 (6) 17 11

Total 279 (243) 100 (19) 100 (17) 100 (36) 100 100 I w 1 Includes all intimate friends given by interviewed respondents. I-' 2 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point. "'I 11 factor of the usual place they met these friends (Table 7.6).

Over· two-thirds (69 per cent) of the contact with intimate friends occurs in the home and is greatest with Armenian friends (70 per cent) and least with Australian friends (58 per cent). At the same time, contact at work is almost twice as high for non-Armenian as for Armenian friends, which explains why daily contact was found to be much more.common with non­ Armenian friends.

Factors Affecting the Formation of Friendships with Australians

The above discussion shows that only a small fraction of the inter­ viewed respondents.have a aZose relationship with Australians, but does not· show the extent of other kinds of friendship contacts between the two. This information is necessary for determining the likely changes in Armenian friendship patterns in the future.

The interviewed respondents wei;'e asked if they felt an Australian could be as clQse a friend to them as another Armenian. Sixty-five stated that such a relationship was possible (one gave no answer). All of those froin Europe and North America and over two-thirds of those from the Arab countries and Asia felt Australians could be their intimate friends, while those from the non-Arab Middle East, principally Iran, generally did not. There are a number of reasons for these differences. Those from Europe . and North America generally had greater eleposure to Western society and were more fluent in English~ Also, the fact that many had not been living in Armenian communities overseas meant that they were more accustomed to forming friendships with non-Armenians. Most from South, East and Southeast Asia and, to a lesser extent, those from the Arab countries had lived. in Australia for over 10 years and had had longer to. adjust to Australian society and to improve their English proficiency. In contrast, those from the non-Arab Middle East were generally the most reeent arrivals, while the largest country group from this region, the Iranian Armenians, have already been shown to be one of the more "Armenian oriented" of the country groups.

Thirty.,-two interviewed respondents did not feel Australians could Table 7.6 Place Respondents and Intimate Friends Usually Meet

Ar-q1enian Australian Friends.· From Total Non,- N=l Total Place Friends Friends Other Ethnic Grou;es Armenian Grou;es %2. (N==) %2 (N::::) %2 (N==) . ~~2 · · (N==) %2

-~' .. ·~· . Respondent's Home 19 (17) 7 (0) 0 (2) 12 (2) 6 7 Friend's Home 20 (15) 6 (4) 21 (1) 6 (5) 14 7 Either Respondent's or Friend's Home 153 (138) 57 (7) 37 (8) 47 (15) 42 55 Club 16 (13) 5 {3) 16 (0) 0 (3) 8 6 Church 17 (16) 7 (1) 5 (0) 0 (1) 3 6 Work 38 (30) 12 (4) 21 (4) 24 (8) 22 14

Other 16 (14) 6 (0) 0 (2) 12 (2) 6 6 I .....w 00 Total 279 (24.3) 100 (19) 100 (17) 100 (36) 100 100 I

1 Includes all intimate friends given by the interviewed respond~nts. 2 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole p~rcentage point. -319-

be their friends, because of: differences in social customs and behaviour, especially those concerned with home visiting; different ways of thinking and the perceived inability of Australians to "understand" thetn; perceived prejudice, or ill-treatment received from Australians; the language barrier. The following remarks are illustrative of these attitudes:

"They [Australians] won't visit each other. Their friendship only goes skin-deep. They will meet one another at a pub but will never go to your house." (Indonesian Armenian who arrived in 1951).

"I would like to have more contact [with Australians] if they were willing to invite me into their homes. They come into my home but never invite me back." (Egyptian Armenian who arrived in 1963).

"Because a friend is someone who understands you very well, the Australians cannot be those friends. They cannot understand you, 'feel' you. To be a friend they must be able to feel how I feel." (Iranian Armenian who arrived in 1971).

"They always consider us as migrants and newcomers and give us names as 'wog' and 'new Australian'." (Iranian Armenian who arrived in 1967).

"They are not friendly with you. I lived next to an Australian for seven years and never had personal contact." (Egyptian Armenian who arrived in 1963).

"They hate you because they are jealous. They don't want you to be close to them.'' (Egyptian Armenian who arrived in 1963).

"They [Australians] can't be close friends because I can't communicate with them completely because I don't know much English." (Turkish Armenian who arrived in 1971).

"I can't talk very good. ·If I can speak good maybe I can find good [Australian] friend." (Iranian Armenian who arrived in 1971).

The attitude towards forming friendships with Australians is also reflected in their desire for greater personal contact. Seventy per cent (45/64) of those who felt Australians could be friends wanted more contact, compared with 41 per cent (13/32) who did not feel this way (Table 7.7). -320-

Table 7. 7

Attitudes Towards Friendships with Australians and Desire for More Personal Contact with Australians

Would Like Would Not Do Not Attitudes1 More Contact Like More Contact Care (N=) %3 (N=) %3 (N=) %3

Those who feel an Australian can be as close a friend as another Armenian 64 (45) 70 (9) 14 (10) 16

Those who feel an Australian cannot be as close a friend as another Armenian 32 (_13) 41 ( 11) 34 (8) 25

96 (58) 60 (20) 21 (18) 19

1 x2 = 8.3371, df = 2, sign at .025 level. 2 Does not include one who gave no answer. 3 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

Overall, two-fifths of those interviewed either did not want or else did not care to have more personal contact withAustralians.

To most Armenians, home visiting is indicative of the "closeness" of a relationship and is a prerequisite for friendship formation. The majority (76of the 97) of the interviewees have visited or been visited by Australians. There is no distinct pattern for this visiting, and only age of the respondent was found to be significantly correlated. 1 Three-fifths . of those under 40 years of age visit Australians at least monthly, compared with only one-sixth of those 50 years or older. Overall, most (59 per cent) ·home visiting is infrequent, occurring no more than a few times a year~ Only eight of the respondents had such contact as frequently as once per week.

1 x2 = 6.0573~ df = 2, sign. at .05 level. -321-

It is interesting to note that three-quarters (23/32) of those who feel Australians can not be intimate friends still have some contact in the home with them- and just as frequently as those who feel the reverse. However, half (12/23) did not want any additional contact. This attitude is understandable in light of the fact that these Armenians did not feel a closer relationship would ever develop from this contact.

To conclude, the friendship patterns of the Armenian immigrants are mainly oriented towards the Armenian community and specifically towards their own country groups. Where the number of fellow countrymen is limited there is a tendency to make friends with Armenians from elsewhere before doing so with non-Armenians, specifically Australians. The most important factors in the selection of intimate friends in Australia are therefore ethnic origin and background, and the composition of their primary groups - as indicated by their intimate friends - appears to remain stable once they are formed in Australia.

Although most. Armenians apparently would like to form closer relationships with Australians, their present contacts are both too shallow and too infrequent to produce such friendships. Those with Australian intimate friends are primarily those who are less oriented towards the Armenian community and more adjusted to Australian society, and generally those who had experience in making non...,.Armenian friends before coming to Australia.

The fact that these friendship patterns have stabilized is a direct indication of social adjustment at the primary group level. Conse­ quently, it is unlikely that these first.generation immigrants will have much greater primary group contact with Australians in the future. Thus, the long-term effects of such social interaction on the eventual structural assimilation of these Armenians is considered to be rather insignificant.

COMlfUNITY PARTICIPATION: GENERAL

The presence of ethnic institutions in an immigrant community has been widely recognized as having a profound influence on the immigrant -322-

group's social adjustment process (Ablon, 1964; Abu-Lughod, 1961-62; Bottomley, 1975; Breton, 1970; Doughty, 1972; Price, 1963). Although there is no general consensus concerning the relationship of these insti­ tutions to this process, three basic assumptions can be derived from the relevant literature:

(1) Ethnic institutions generally assist immigrants in adjusting to the host society,l by helping them to withstand the pressures of a hostile environment

(Gordon, 1964: 34, 37- 38; Horobin, 1957; Verwey~ Jonker and Brackel, 1957; Zubrzycki, 1956), or by serving as a medium of communications through which new ideas arid values can be conveyed from the host society, or between generations within the ethnic community itself (Allen, 1971; Bottomley, ·1975; Chyz and Lewis, 1949; Eisenstadt, 1954: 18-19; Gordon, 1964; Shannon a.nd Shannon, 196 T: 68; Thomas, 1959).

(2) These institutions tend to retard or prevent such adjustment by keeping the immigrants' interaction and social relations within the ethnic community (Breton? 1970; Fitzpatrick, 1966; Gans, :1,.962; Martin, 1972a; Price, 1963; Richmond, 1969).

(3) They aid in initial adjustment while hindering or .slowing down longer term adjustment and assimilation

(Fitzpatrick, 1966; Gordon~ 1964: 243-244; Huber, 1972; Price, 1970: 192; Richmond, 1969; Taft, 1953; 1957; 1963).

This does not mean that the role of such institutions in their adjust­ ment to the host society is in any way intentional on the part of the immigrants themselves. In fact, the purpose of these institutions may actually be just the reverse. Both Gordon (1964: 80) and Martin (1972a: 122-123) have noted that most immigrant organizations do not normally see as part of their function an attempt to orient the immigrant community towards the host society. -323-

This last assumption appears to be the most generally accepted .today.

Immigrant communities differ widely in the number and kinds of institutions they develop due to three basic factors: the community's numerical.size and its relative segregation and concentration (Burnley, _1974a; Choi, 1970: 313; Lieberson, 1963a: 37; Price, 1963: 229; 1969: 187- 188); the relationship of its members to the host society, which includes the presence of discrimination or prejudice, the acceptance of immigrants in host society institutions, and.so on (Eisenstadt, 1952a; Price, 1969: 188-:189; Shannon and Shannon, 1967: 69.); the perceived relationship of the . ethnic group members to one another (Fitzpatrick, 1966: 9).

·It must be assumed that a minimum threshold size is needed for the development and continued support of different ethnic institutions.

Simila~rly, the number of inmiigrants in a particular area must be assumed to limit the number of institutions which the group .can support. This last facto.r, in turn, is related t() the degree of concentration of the group, since a highly .concentrated small group may have the number of participants necessary to support particular institutions in an area,, while a larger, more.widely dispersed group may not.

The second factor is concerned with the "separateness" or social distance of the immigrant. group from the host society and is determined by the perceived cultural differences between the two. Where a "conflict of cultures" occurs, as happened with the Chinese immigrants in Australia (Choi, 1970), ethnic institutions may evolve as "substitutes'' for those of the host society from which the immigrants are excluded. ·In other cases, where there is greater cultural similarity, those ethnic institutions developed will tend to "complement" host society ones, 1 since the immigrants will likely have more access to a wider range of the latter. The extreme of this is where itnmigrants have complete access to host society institutions and prefer to participate in these rather than to develop their own. In such cases there may be nodevelopment of ethnic institutions.

1 To ·"complement" here means to provide services not offered by host society institutions, or else, not avaib.ble to immigrants. -324-

The third factor concerns the "feelings".immigrants have towards their ethnic identity and their sense of "oneness" with other members of their ethnic group. Often the mere possession of a common ethnic background is not enough to bind them together to produce a corporate community with its ow institutions. There must be a depth of feeling necessary to draw them together and keep them together.

These factors are not necessarily e:x:clusive and often the presence or absence of one is found to influence the others. For example, the exist- ence of prejudice may serve to emphasize ethnic identity and enhance the sense of being members of a particular group, while, at the. same time, it may lead to residential ·segregation and cotl.ce.ntration.

An additional factor should be mentioned here as it is especially relevant for immigrant groups such as the Armenians. This is the presence. of an institution common to all or most of the members of the group and one which is not affected by migration. A good e:kample is a national church. The very existence of such an institution s·eems to set forces in motion which eventually lead to the development of other ethnic institutions. Thus, it can.be termed a "core" institution, central to the development of communal social life. 1

Not all innnigrant groups develop their own institutions, nor are such institutions necessary foi: the existence of extensive social inter- action among group members. As found by Gans .(1962: 106) for the. Italian- Americans of Boston, most social functions can be satisfied within the peer· group, making community participation ancillary. Others, such as Martin (l972a: 132), have noted the more dominant and resilient nature of social network relations over those of formal associations~ Indeed, associations

1 Huber (1972) found that the formation of one ethnic club in .the Italian community of Griffith, N.S.W., helped to lay the foundation for the emergence of more. Breton (1970: 136) also emphasized how important the presence of any institution was to the degree of "cohesiveness" in an immigrant community.

I. -325-

are often no more than the formalization of preexisting network ties. 1

In this context, ethnic community institutions may be viewed as the "superstructure" of an underlying network of informal associations (Axelrod, 1956: 18). An examination of these institutions, their role in organizing social relations in the immigrant community and individual participation in them can therefore reveal much about these informal. relations. Likewise, a comparison of the participation which takes place in ethnic institutions with that which occurs in those of the host society can help indicate both the extent and direction of immigrant social adjustment. 2

Community Participation of the Sydney Armenians

At the time of the Armenian Survey there were 13 formally organized associations, three Armenian churches and one established Armenian political party in Sydney. Six of the associations and two of the churches also had youth groups and all three churches had womens' auxiliary groups. With the exception of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which was founded in 1954,3 none of these organizations were established before 1961. Six associations, plus the Armenian Evangelical Church, have only been formally established since 1972. In all, there are today three welfare associations, three

1 Long before the concept of "social network" was developed, Maciver (1924) noted the greater importance of informal social relations when he wrote: "Community is something wider and freer than even the greatest associat­ ions; it is the greater common life out of which associations rise, into. which associations bring order, but which associatio;ns never completely fulfil". 2 Such a comparison cannot reveal the quality of the relationships or the difference between the "kinds" of relations which exist within the immigrant community and outside the community. Both Gordon (1964: 37) and Banton (1973: 48) have noted that within-group relations - which are of the nature of a dense network with crosscutting ties - a:te often different from the more standardized role-relationships existing between groups. Thus, even though participation in host society institutions takes place, the relations involved may not be equivalent to those developed in ethnic institutions. 3 During the early years the Sydney Apostolic Church had two affiliated organizations - a Ladies Guild, which was started in 1956 and a Younger Set (youth group) which began in 1961. -326-

cultural organizations, two sporting clubs, two church affiliated groups, two educational associations and one political organization, excluding the churches and political party. Five of these organizations and two of the churches regularly publish newsletters.· There is no community-wide publication or newspaper and, since most of those published generally reach no further than their own membership, their significance with respect to community participation must be considered limited.

The.community has no formally organized social clubs or associations, although most of the established organizations, including the churches and political party, hold periodic social functions which are usually open to all whowish to attend. Besides helping to meet the social needs. of the community, such an arrangement makes possible greater support from a much larger proportion of the community than their own membership. This is very .important for the continuation'of these organizations, as indicated by the

·ratio of occasional, participation in orgatliz~tional functions to actual membership, which is four to one.

Almost all participation in these organizations, by members and non-members alike, is confined to Armenians. Non-Armenian membership is extremely limited, even though eight of the associations do not prohibit such membership as long asnon-Armenians meet the requirements set out in the organization's by-laws. The common requirement ofmarriage to an

Armenian, however, precludes any significant number of non~Armenian members.

·Only five of the formal associations had non-Armenian members at. the ti~e of the Survey and in most cases the mllllber was very smalL There is apparently no active attempt on the part of any organization to encourage non-Armenian membership and participation, except as specially invited guests at formal functions or events. the social contact which takes place between Armenians and non-Armenians.in such circumstances must therefore .be. considered minimal. I

Nine of the associations were locally established andhad no

1 Participant-observation at formal functions also indicates that only superficial contact occurs between different sub-groups of Armenians. These sub-groups are made up principally of Armenians who came from the same communities overseas .• . -327-

international connections. The other four were branches of international organizations, three of which were among the first organizations to be established in the Sydney colttll;lunity. Of the latter two werewelfare organizations while the third was a sporting association. Although at the time these three were established their support base. within the community . was quite small, the tradition of establishment of such organizations in

Diaspora communiti~s, combined with the support received from the parent organizations, ensured their successful continuation. Like the establish­ ment of the Apostolic Church and its affiliated associations, these early organizations must be asstimed to have provi

Before continuing with this discussion it is necessary to make a distinction between membership and participation. The act of joining, paying dues, and·so on, is considered here to indicate a commitment on the part of the individual, as well as an acceptance of him by the other members­ what Taft (1965: 7, 11) has referred to as the individual's "membership identity"• Participation outside membership, on the other hand, shows no commitment on the part of either the individual or the organization. Nevertheless, it is important with respect to the intensity of contact with Armenians and non-Armenians alike. thus, although membership may be con­ sidered a better indicator of the "direction" of social adjustment, an _individual's total participation -·whether or not he or she is amember of organiz;ations - must be examined as it shows the means by which such social adjustment occurs.

Forty-eight per cent of the .interviewed respondents are not members of Armenian associations or organizations, although two-thirds participate in organizational functions, at least occasionally. 1 This is less than participation in Australian associations and organizations, of which two .... thirds. are members and in which almost three-quarters participate. Very few join or participate in more than two organizations, either Armenian or . Au$tralian, although the number who are members of three or more is four times greater for membership of Australian organizations than Armenian (Table 7.8).

1 Church attendance is.not included here. -328-

Table 7.8

Organizational Membership and Participation

Armenian Or~anizations Australian Or~anizationsl. Number of Member Particieate2 Member Particieate2 Organizations %3 . (N=) %~ (N=) %~ (N=) %3 (N=) 0 .

One Organization (35) 36 (35) 36 (36) 37 (37) 38 Two Organizations (12) 12 (20) 21 (15) 15 (19) 20 Three Organizations (3) 3 (9) 9 (10) 10 ( 11) 11 Four Organizations (0) 0 (2) 2 (1) 1 (2) 2 Five Organizations (0) 0 (O) 0 (1) 1 (2) 2 None (47) 48 (31) 32 (34) 35 (26) 27

Total (97) 100 (97) 100 (97) 100 (97) 100

1 Includes organizations of other imrnigrant groups. 2 Those who participate includes both those who are members and those who are not. 3 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

The Armenianorganizations with the largest membership, in order of size, are the cultural, sporting and welfare associations. The pro- portion of the conununity who are members of these organizations is still quite small: only a quarter have joined one or more cultural associations, while a sixth have joined sporting clubs and a sixth have become members of welfare organizations. As mentioned earlier, there are no Armenian social clubs, although the need for this kind of organization is partially met by the social functions of the various associations. This helps to account for the differences in the numbers who are members and who participate in the various Armenian organizations (Table 7.9).

The patterns of membership for Australian organizations is quite differen·t. The sporting organizations had the largest number of members, followed by the social clubs. Membership in other kinds of organizations, such as business and professional associations, was negligible in comparison. As was found for the Jewish immigrants (Encel et aZ., 1972: 111), this greater membership in sporting and social clubs partially reflects the popularity -329-

Table 7.9

Categories of Organizational Membership and Participation

Armenian Organizations Australian. Organizations Type of Organization Member ParticiEatei Member ParticiEatei (U=)2 %3 (N=)2 %3 (N=)2 %3 (N=)2 %3

Political (4) 4 (5) 5 '(3) 3 (3) 3 Social (0) 0 (0) 0 (34) 35 ( 42) '+ 43 Sporting (16) 16 (27) 28 (45) 46. (47) 48 Welfare (16) 16 (24) 25 (3) 3 (3) 3 Business/Professional (O) 0 (O) 0 (4) 4 (4) 4 Youth (2) 2 (6) 6 (0) 0 (1) 1 Cultural (24) 25 (33) 34 (0) 0 (0) 0 Educational (2) 2 (3) 3 ( 1) 1 (1) 1 Church Related5 (1) 1 (3) 3 (1) 1 (2) 2

1 Includes both members and non-members' participation. 2 If a respondent was a member or participated in more than one organization in any one category he is counted only once. Respondents are reflected in more than one category if they were members of or participated in more than one.organization. 3 All percentages are based on. the 97 interviewed respondents. All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point. 4 Four respondents were members of other immigrant social clubs - three Italian and one Russian. 5 Does not include Church memb-ership.

of licenced clubs, such as league's clubs and ex-servicemen's clubs in New . . South Wales. At the same time, however, such organizations provide both the opportunity and the facilities for more regular social contact than is offered by the Armenian organizations; they are able to fill a need which is not adequately provided for within the Armenian community.l.

Participation in Australian organizations also shows a different l It is unlikely that the Sydney Armenian Community could provide the support necessary for the establishment and maintenance of anything equivalent to an R.S.L. or League's Club, since such clubs would require a strong commitment on the part of most of the Sydney Armenians. -330-

pattern to that of Armenian organizations. With the exception of partici- pation in social clubs, there is little participation in Australian organizations by non-members. For most of these organizations, membership is a prerequisite for participation.

Armenian Membership in Formal Organizations in Sydney

Membership in formal organizations is influenced by many factors. Of most significance for the Armenians are their country of last residence, their duration of residence in Australia and, particularly for membership in Australian organizations, their level of English proficiency at time of arrival.

Based on theinterview data there appear to be very significant differences in the proportions from the various countries and regions who are members of formal organizations, although, for all groups, membership in Australian organizations is equal to or greater than membership in Armenian organizations (Table 7.10). This indicates that country of origin is related to overall "level" of membership in formal organizations in Australia.

Although the number of interviewed respondents does not warrant a detailed examination of the relationship of countryof origin to the kinds of organizations joined, it is still possible to show whether regional · groups are over or underrepresented in the more important organizations. For the Armenian organizations, those respondents from the Arab Middle East are the most overrepresented in welfare and cultural organizations, while those from South, East and Southeast Asia are the only group overrepresented in sporting associations. The non-Arab Middle Eastern Armenians are under- represented in all categories of organizations.

With respect to membership in the more important Australian organ­ izations - the social and sporting - there is very little over or under­ representation noted for any of the regional groups, indicating that country of origin is of little significance with respect to their membership. Table. 7 .H) Organizational Membership by Cc;>Untcy of Last Res.idence

Member ofl Member. . ofl . Member of Not a Member Region/Country Armenian N= Australian At Least One of Any ofLast Residence Organization{s} Orsanb;ation (s) ·. Orsanization Orsanization (N:) %~ (N,;.) %2 (N=) %2 (N=) %2 Arab Middle East Egypt 25 (19) 76 (19) 76 . (21) . 84 (4) 16 Syria 6 (3) 50 (.3) 50 (5) 83 (1) 17 Lebanon 13 (5) 38 (.10) 77 (10) 77 (.3) 23 Jordan (+ Israel) 11 (6) 55 (6) 55 (8) 73 (3) 27 Iraq 2 (0) 0 (2) 100 (2) 100 (0) 0 Other Arab ME 5 (1) 20 (2) 40 (3) .60 (2) 40 Sub-Total 62 (34) 55 (42) . 68 (49) 79 (1:3) 21 Non-Arab Middle East Turkey 3 (1) 33 (3) . 100 (3) 100 (0) 0 I w Iran 14 (6) 43 (7) 50 (10) 71 (.4) 29 ....w Soviet Armenia (+ USSR) 1 .(0) . 0 (0) . 0 (0) 0 (1) lOO I Sub-Total . 18 (7) 39 ·· (10) 56· (13) 72 (.5) 2:8

South~ East and Southeast Asia India 4 (3) 7.5 (3) 75 (3) 75 (1) 25 Indonesia .5. (3) 60 (3) 60 (5) 100 W) o Other Asia 2 (1) 50 (2) 100 (2) 100 ro> o Sub-Total u (7) 64 (8) 73 {10) 91 (1) 9 Europe and North America 4 (1) 25 (2) 50 (2) 50 (2) 50 Other Countries 2 (1) 50 (1) 50 (2) 100 . (0) ..o Total 97 (50) 52' (62) 64 (76) 78 (21) 22 1 The number of organizations of which a respondent is a member is not considered. 2 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

--·~·~~-·-;- -332-

It is apparent that the regional/country backgrounds of the Armenians are an important determinant of those Armenian organizations they tend to join. This indicates that some, if not all, are of a.country or regional nature. An examination of the country of origin of their membership shows this is largely the case. Five of the 13 organizations draw the majority of their members from one country group, while all but.two of the rest obtain their membership primarily from one region.

This can be explained by the kinds of organizations which were prevalent in.their previous communities of residence. For example, the Calcutta Armenian community, from which most Indian Armenians have come, had a thriving sports club to which almost all the Armenian men belonged. Being a very important part of their social life in Calcutta, many wanted to reestablish a similar club in Australia. Likewise, almost all the Armenian communities in the Arab Middle East had Armenian cultural and welfare societies around which much of the formal' social life of these communities revolved. What was more natural than for immigrants from these countries to establish such organizations in Australia?

The only·organizations which include members·from a great variety of backgrounds and which have no substantial majority from any one country are the Armenian Students Association and the Armenian Graduates Association, whose memberships are based on tertiary education obtained in Australia. This criterion for membership, as. well as the fact that the members of both are probably the most Australianized in the Armenian community, would naturally result in their more diverse membership.

The longer an Armenian lives in Australia, the more likely he is to join both formal Armenian and Australian organizations, although the patterns of membership differ.· During the first few years the immigrants tend to join Armenian organizations, although it is not until after 10 years' residence that overall membership in these organizations shows a substantial increase. In contrast, membership in Australian organizations shows a significant increase by the five year mark, only to taper off in later years. Overall, the proportion who are not members of any organization declines steadily with increased duration of residence (Table 7.11). Table 7.11

Organizational Membership by Duration of Residence

Number of Armenian organizations1 Number of Australian organizations2 ·. Not a member Member of of which a member of which a member of any both an organization Armenian and Armenian or Australian Sub-'- Sub- Australian o.rganization Duration of 1 2 3+ Total None 1 2 3+ Total None Residence N= (N=) %3 (N=) %3 (N=) %3 (N=) %3 (N=) %3 (N=) %3 (N=) %3 (N=) %3 (N=) %3 (N=) %3 (N=) %3 (N=) %3 o-4 years 12 (3) .25 (2) 17 (0} 0 (5) 42 (7) 58 (2) 17 (1) 8 (0) 0 . (3) 25 (9) 75 (5) 42 (1) 8 I 5-9 years 32 . (10) 31 (1) 3 (1) 3 (12) 38 (20) 63 (13) 41 (4) 13 (3) 9 (20) 6.3 (12) 38 (7) 22 (7) 22 w w .. w 10-14 years 44 (17) 39 (8) 25 (2) 5 (:2.7) 61 (17) 39 (18) 41 (8) 18 (9) 20 .(35) 80 (9) 20 (8) 18 (26) 59 I

15 ·or more years 9 (5) 56 (1) 11 (O) 0 (6) 67 (3) 33 (3) 33 (2) 22 (0) 0 (5) 56 (4) 44 (1) 11 (3) 33

Total 97 (35) 36 (12) 12 ( 3) 3 (50) 52 (47) 48 (36) 37 (15) (12) 12 .(63) 65 (34) 35 (21) 22 (37) 38

Combining rows one and two. and rows three and four and columns one through three x2 = 5.3738, df = 1, significant at .025 leveL

2 Combining rows one and two and rows three and four and columns one through three x2 = 5.6835, df = 1, significant .at .025 level.

3 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

' :.: -334-

Duration of residence.also appears related to the kinds of Armenian organizations joined. For example, the proportion who are members of welfare associations increases with duration of residence. . Although this may be due to the relatively long tenure of two of the three Armenian welfare associations, the more likely explanation is found in the change over time in the country/region of origin of the migrants. The more recent immigrants have come from communities in the non-Arab Middle East, which did not have a tradition of welfare societies. Consequently, they would. be less likely to join such organizations in Australia.

There is also a very noticeable trend in membership of Australian organizations. A much larger proportion of the more recent arrivals are members of social clubs, while a greater proportion of the earlier arrivals are found in sporting clubs. The reason appears to be related to a change in Australian society whereby immigrants, such as the Armenians, have been progressively allowed greater access to Australian social clubs, due to a liberalization of their membership rules. 1

Mastery of the English language has been shown in many studies of migrant groups in Australia to be a prerequisite for participation in Australian organizations (Choi, 1970: 277; Mapstone, 1966: 202-203; Zubrzycki, 1964b: 129). The Armenians conform to this pattern, although lack of English fluency today does not appear to deter them from joining Australian organizations. Of the two interviewed respondents who spoke·no English at. the time of the Survey, one was a member of an Australian organ­ ization, while five of the six who spoke only a little English had also joined Australian organizations. None, however, was a member of more than one Australian organization.

Although 27 per cent of those interviewed stated they improved their proficiency in English after arrival, only a third of them have joined Australian organizations. This is in contrast to the 65 per cent who indicated they spoke English adequately on arrival, of whom three-quarters hold membership in Australian organizations today (Table 7.12}. It is

1 Discussions with a number of the interviewed respondents who related their experiences with respect to joining Australian associations tend to support this assumption. -335-

Table 7.12

Influence of English Proficiency at Time of Arrival on Membership in Australian Organizations Today

Member of Australian English Proficiency1 Organization N= at Time of Arrival Yes No (N=) %2 (N=) %2

Spoke Very Well or Fair 63 (48) 76 (15) 24

Spoke Little or None at All 34 (15) 44 (19) 56

Total 97 (63) 65 (34) 35

1 x2 = 9.9779, df = 1, sign. at .005 level. 2 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

clear, therefore, that being fairly proficient in English on arrival is a major determinant of whether or not they eventually joined Australian organizations; later improvement has had only a minimal effect.

In summary, organizational membership is largely determined by three factors: regional and country background, duration of residence in Australia and, for Australian organizations, an adequate command of English at time of arrival. In general, most Armenian organizations in Sydney are of a regional nature, reflecting the kinds of organizations which were most prevalent ·in the Armenian communities of these regions. The Australian organizations joined are those which offer the social environment which is not provided by the various Armenian organizations. Also, they have been partially determined by the fact that membership in more Australian social clubs has apparently been opened up to migrants during the period since Armenians have begun to arrive in substantial numbers. As length of residence in Australia increases; the proportion who join formal organizations, both Armenian and Australian, increases. -336-

Range and Frequency of Armenian Community Participation

The range of organizational participation - the number of organ­ izations in which an Armenian participates - has been shown to be greater than that indicated by membership alone. Such a finding says nothing about the "intensity of contact" 1 individuals have with these organizations. ·For example, an individual may be a member of three organizations and participate in a fourth, but attend only one meeting or func.tion of each per year. With rega:td to membership and range of participation, he is assumed to be very active; in reality, however, another individual who joins no organizations but participates in two at least weekly is much more active and has more frequent contact with organizational members. On the other hand, the first individual's organizational contacts are probably broader, as his range of participation is greater, and it is assumed that he is more committed to the organizations he joined.

In order to examine both range and frequency of participation together - the "intensity of contact" - and its relationship to membership, a crude index of organizational participation was devised as follows:

Score Frequency of Participation in One Organization

0 No participation 1 Few times a year 2 At least once per month 3 At least once per week 4 Daily

Such an index allows for a rough summation of individual and group participation in organizations, regardless of individual membership status. For example, an individual who is a member of three organizations and participates in a fourth, but attends them only once or twice a year, would have a participation score of four (1+1+1+1); while a second individual who

1 Intensity of contact is defined here as the frequency of an individual's participation in all organizations, including those of which he is not a member. -337-

does not join but participates in two organizations weekly would have a score of six (3+3). It should be noted that these summary scores indicate nothing about an individual's frequency of participation; a score of three does not mean that an immigrant participates at least once per week in an organization, but rather the scores indicate his relative participation in organizations which can be used in comparing the overall level of partic­ ipation of individuals and groups.

A comparison of overall participation with those factors which were most influential in determining membership patterns shows some interesting differences. First, the patterns of participation in Armenian organizations of the country groups differ from those found for membership (Table 7.13). The most active participants are those from the Arab Middle East, followed by those from the non-Arab Middle East and from South, East and Southeast Asia. Thus, although those from South, East and Southeast Asia have the greatest overall membership, they are not the most active participants. Also, unlike membership patterns, those from the non-Arab Middle East participate more in Armenian organizations than in Australian organizations, indicating that their more."Armenian orientation" affects their participation even though it apparently has not affected membership in Australian organ- izations. The participation patterns in Australian organizations were found to coincide with those for membership in these organizations, supporting the earlier finding that few non-members participate in these organizations.

As found for membership, overall participation increases with increased duration of residence, both in Armenian and Australian organizations (Table 7.14). Of significant interest is the fact that there is greater participation in Australian than in Armenian organizations - regardless of duration of residence. Likewise, proficiency in English has approximately the same effect on organizational participation as on membership. The .level of fluency at arrival appears to be much more important as a determinant of the level of participation than·either improvement in proficiency or present-day £luency (Table 7.15).

It is generally assumed that greater participation in ethnic organ­ izations results in less participation in those of the host society. If · Table 7.13 Participation in Organi2;ations by Region/Country of Last Residence

Armenian Orga:nization Austr(llian Organization Combined Region/Country · Partid.fation . Score N= ParticiEation.Score ParticiEation Score of Last Residence (Total Average (Total Average (Total .Average .Score) · Score Score) Score Score) Score Arab Middle East Egypt 25 (65) 2.6 (67) 2.7 (132) 5.3 Syria 6 (16) 2.7 (12) 2.0 (28) 4.7 Lebanon 13 (27) 2.1 . (36) 2.8 (63) 4.8 Jordan (+ Israel) 11 (27) 2.5 (31) 2.8 (58) 5.3 Iraq 2 (0) 0.0 (8) 4.0 (8) 4.0 Other Arab ME 5 (4) 0.8 . (5) 1.0 (9) 1.8 Sub,-Total 62 (139) 2.2 (159) 2.6 . (298) 4.8 Non-Arab Middle East Turkey .3 (3) 1.0 . (5) 1.7 (8) 2.7 I Iran 14 (29) 2.1. (~8) 2.0 (57) 4.1 w~ 00 Soviet Armenia (+ USSR) 1 (3) 3. o ~ -~~ ~ ~~

· Table 7.14

Participation Score by Duration of Residence in Aus.tralia

Participation in Participation in· Combined Armenian Australian Participation Duration of N:;:; Organizations Organizations Score ·Residence Total Average Total Average Total Average Score Score Score Score Score Score

Less than 10. years 44 (67) 1.5 (88) 2.0 (155) 3.5 10 years or more 53 (132) 2.5 (148) 2.8 (280) 5.3

Total 97 (199) 2.1 (236) 2.4 (435) .4.5

this i.s true then Armenians who have a higher rate .of participation in Armenian organizations should participate less in Australianorganizations.

Table 7 ~15

Inf.l,uence of English Proficiency at Time of Arrival on Participation in Australian Organizations Today

English Total Average Proficiency at N= Participation Participation Time of Arrival Score. Sc.ore

Spoke Very Well or Fair 63 (184) 2.9 Spoke Little or None at All 34 (52) 1.5

Total 97 (236) 2.4 -340-

Although not statistically significant the trends noted in Table 7.16 indicate that such a relationship in fact does exist.

Table 7.16

Relation of Participation in Armenian and Australian Organizations

Participation1 Participation Scores for Scores for Australian Organizations N= Armenian 0-1 2-3 4+ Organizations (N=) %2 (N=) %2 . (N=) %2

0-1 46 (22) 48 (14) 30 (10) 22 . 2-3 32 (12) 38 (9) 28 (11) 34 4+ 19 (7) 37 (5) 26 (7) 37

Total 97 (41) 42 (28) 29 (28) 29

l x2 = 2.2932, df = 4, not sign. at .05 level. 2 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

Membership and participation in Australian organizations·does not mean that all contact within these organizations is with Australians. Of the 71 interviewees who participate in Australian organizations, only 37 usuaUy associate with Australians in these organizations. Twenty-two associate mainly with other Armenians, while. five confine their contacts to members of other ethnic groups. Seven have almost equal contact with Armenians and Australians. There is no significant difference in the kinds of organizations in which these different patterns of association occur.

These patterns are related to two factors - country of origin and proficiency in the English language today. Although the patterns for the · different regional groups vary significantly (Table 7 .17), English pro- ficiency appears to be the more important determinant. Seven-tenths of those with an inadequate command of English associate mainly with other Armenians or other immigrants, compared with 35 per cent of those who have -341-

Table 7.17

Influence of·Regional Background on Patterns of Association in Australian Organizations

ltegion of Usual Associates Within Last Australian Organizations Armeni.:ul; · · ·Half /Half Residence Aus traliam Other (N=) %2 (N=) . %2 (N=) %2 (N=) %2

Non-Arab Middle East 11 (3). 27 (5) 45 (l) 9 (2) 18 Arab Middle East· 48 (25) 54 (15) 31 (6) 13 (2) 4 South, East and Southeast Asi.a 8 (6) 63 (1) 13 ·(0) 0 (1) 25 Other 4 (3) 75 (1) 25 (0) 0 (0) 25

Tbtal 71 (37) 52 (2Z) 31 (7) 10 (5) 7

1 Includes only those interviewed respondents who participate in Australian·organizations. 2 All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

at least an adequate proficiency• As with membership, improvement .in English language skills over time has had little effect on the proportion who associate. mainly with Australians.

An interesting finding with respect to these patterns is that as over.all. membership and participation in Australian organizations· increase there is no concomitant increase in contacts with Aust.ralians in these organ- izatiori.s. The. more active participants in Australian organizations have no more actual contact with Australian members than do those much less active.

The present pattern of association in Australian organizations seems unlikely to change in the near future. A substantial portion of those who participate in these organizations will very likely continue to restrict their contacts to rion-Austra1ians, especially Armenians. Thus, the actual impact of such organizational participation on their sociai .adjustment to -342-

Australian society will·remain considerably less than that indicated by

~embership and participation in these organizations.

The Non-Participators

The limited amount of available information makes any firm deter­ mination: of the principal factors contributing to non-participation difficult. ·It is possible, however, to identify some of the more likely reasons. From the interview data it was found that 31 respondents do not participate it\ Armenian organizations, 26 do not participate in Australian organizations and 11-do not participate in either. Ea.ch of these groups exhibits different characteristics indicating that different factors probably influence their non-participation. . For Armenian organiza,fi.ions, the principal,. reason appears to be that they are not closely involved with the Sydney conununity. For example,. just under half are members of churches other than the Armenian Apostolic and over half consider themselves members of Australian political parties. Since only a fifth ident.Hy with an Armenian ideology it is apparent that the majority tend to identify more with Australian than Armenian life. Their marginal status to the 4-rmenian community is also. shown by the fact that this group is the only. one of the three which contains respondents who have married non-Armenians and who do not speak Armenian.

Those who do not participate in Australian organizations have different characteristics. They ar:e largely members of t;heApostolic Church · and those who identify with an Armenian political ideology. At the same time, .few .consider themselves members of Austra;lian pol;i.tical parties. Those who are married are married to Armenians. These characteristics indicate a ·decidedly "Armenian orientation" for this group.

The third group, those .who do not participate in either Armenian or Australian organizations, had the largest proportion who consider their lives to be unsatisfactory. They also do not appear to be orientated either towards Australian society o:r towards the Armenian community, as indicated by the fact that.they generally do not consider themselves members of Australian political parties and do no.t identify with any Armenian ideology. -343-

In addition, over a third are members of churches other than the Armenian Apostolic and a few are not members of any church.

There are other characteristics which were found to be common to all non-participators. First, between a third and a half were over 40 ·years of age at arrival itt Australia, while between half and two-thirds were over 40 at the time of the Survey. This included some respondents who were in their 60's, 70's and even one who was 82. When combined with the fact that between half and two-thirds of these had major problems with English and had encountered other problems, such as with finding accommodation and . jobs on arrival, probably added to their general dissatisfaction and reluctance to participate in formal organizations, especially Australian ones. Also, a similar proportion ·was dissatisfied with'the social life in Australia.

Having migrated from communities where there w~re manyArmenian social clubs and an active social life with constant visiting and socializing, many found the social.life here too ''mechanical". They were no longer part of a social group but were individuals who had mainly individual social relations. This change disenchanted many, leading them to concentrate their energies on informal social relationships and groups.

Other forces leading to non-participation were generated at the community level. The fact that most of. the Armenian organizations were of a regional nature resulted in some Armenians from other regions. not wanting to participate. For example, a number of those from Egypt made it clear during interviews that they did·not care to associate with Lebanese Armenians. Such an attitude meant that. these same individuals would proha:t>ly not participate in organizations which had a large number of Lebanese Armenian members. Similarly, the internal conflicts of the Armenian. community described in the previous chapter have served to reduce the overall level of participation in Armenian organizations and caused many Armenians to forsake participation in community organizations because they chose to avoid the strife.l

1 Martin (1972a: 123) made a similar finding for Hungarian immigrants in Australia. Many tended to be discouraged from taking part in community affairs because of the political andreligious controversy within the Hungarian minority group. -344-

The scattered nature.of the Armenian population has also contributed to non-participation in Armenian organizations. With most based in North Sydney, the distance for those living in South and West Sydney-has caused the non-participation of many. The organizational involvement that does take place in these other areas is limited to small local organizations . . · whose memberships are drawn largeiy from the same communities overseas. It is unlikely, therefore, that marty others in these areas would join or participate in such organizations.

The factors which result in non-participation in Australian organ­ izations are that: many do not like the atmosphere of Australian clubs and organizations or the social customs of Australians and many feel "out of place'i or uncomfortable around Australians·, especially if they have exper­ ienced any prejudice or discrimination. It is highly unlikely that many Armenians would be sufficiently interested to force their wily into Australian • J organizations which were ~ot amenable to their joining. .

In summary, th~n, non-participation in organizations appears to be a function of many factors, some of -which are common to all Artn.enians and some of which vary from individual to individual. In general, however, non-participation in one community, Armenian or Australian, is correlated with a strong identification with the o:ther. Those who do not participate in any organizations do not identify with either community and are more dissatisfied with their life in Australia than those who. dp participate. Only a small percentage of the Armenians do not participate in formal organi2:ations at all.

CONCLUSIONS

The social adjustment of the Sydney Armenians has been very rapid and oriented mainly towards the Armenian community. At the primary group and community levels social relations have been largely confined to other Armenians, specifically to those from the same country or region as the immigrant, and often to persons who were known overseas before migration. This is partially due t.o the mode of migration of the majority of the -345-

Armenians, that is, chain and family migration, and partially because of the rapid reestablishment of Armenian social.life in Sydney, made possible by the "transplantation" of Armenian institutions whichwere conunon in most major Diaspora conununities. ·The. former led to the reconstitution in Australia of the primary social groups of many of these inunigrants, while the latter provided a basic structure for keeping Armenian social relations

·within the group~ or at least within the Armenian conununity. Consequently; there was no necessity for most Armenians to forge social links with Australians or· ·other non-Armenians.

Although membership and participation are greater inAustralian than in Armenian organizations, the importance of this with respect to social adjustment to Australian society is mininia:l. Most participation in Australian organizations is confined to those organizations which provide facilities not available in the.Armenian conununity,. and social interaction within these organizations takes place mainly with other Armenians. It is principally for this reason that pard.cipation in the organizations of one of the conununities, Armenian or Australian, has only a limited effect on .. participation in the other.

Most of the evidence presented points to the fact that the o,erall patterns of Armenian social participatiott iri Australia are not changing in the direction of greater social interaction .with Australians; specifically, Armenian friendship patterns have not significantly changed over time and increased participation in Australian C?rganizations has· not led to greater contact with Aust.ralian members. Cons~quently, it can be concluded that .the first generation's patterns of social participation in Australian society are unlikely to lead to their structural assimil;:ttion.