4 Devrim Sezer: Anxieties of Naming S: I. M. O. N. S HOAH: I NTERVENTION. METHODS. DOCUMENTATI ON. ARTICLE Devrim Sezer Anxieties of Naming Conceptual Controversies around the Armenian Genocide Abstract Synthesising insights from political theory and Holocaust and genocide studies for a trans- disciplinary analysis, this article aims to explore a topic that has not been systematically investigated in the study of the Armenian genocide, despite its obvious importance and contemporary relevance: anxieties of naming and conceptual controversies around the Armenian genocide. More specifcally, it assesses the scholarly and political implications of historiographical, ethical, and pragmatic anxieties regarding the concept of genocide. Te fundamental argument of the article is that, although these anxieties expressed by scholars across the board need to be taken seriously, the alternative concepts proposed as substitutes not only seem much vaguer but also fail to capture the harm caused by the destruction of a people. Introduction Te denial of the Armenian genocide has been scrutinised from a variety of angles since the 1990s. Tus, there today exists a rich and ever-expanding scholarly litera- ture devoted to the investigation of this particular phenomenon. Tis is not entirely surprising, given the fact that “one striking feature of the Armenian genocide is its denial by the heirs of the perpetrators”. 1 What has remained unexplored, however, is the radically sceptical attitude displayed in theoretical debates towards the very con- cept of genocide and, more signifcantly for the purposes of this paper, the ramif- cations of this scepticism for the naming of the destruction of the Armenians. Te entire dispute boils down to a single question: If the notion of genocide is such a contested term, having been embroiled in deep controversy since it was invented, why insist on this concept? 2 For the sake of clarity, I will split this sceptical outlook into three parts, because the same question appears to be an expression of three diferent anxieties: historiographical, ethical, and pragmatic. I must explicitly state from the outset that these anxieties cannot be construed as a trivialisation of the 1 Yehuda Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust, New Haven 2001, 59. Bauer’s remarks seem to refect a scholarly consensus. See: Roger W. Smith/Eric Markusen/Robert J. Lifon, Professional Ethics and the Denial of the Armenian Genocide, in: Holocaust and Genocide Studies 9 (1995) 1, 1-22; Israel W. Charny/Daphna Fromer, Denying the Armenian Genocide. Patterns of Tinking as Defence-Mechanisms, in: Patterns of Prejudice 32 (1988) 1, 39-49; Donald Bloxham, Te Great Game of Genocide. Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruc- tion of the Ottoman Armenians, Oxford 2005, 207-234; Uğur Ümit Üngör, Lost in Commemoration. Te Armenian Genocide in Memory and Identity, in: Patterns of Prejudice 48 (2014) 2, 147-176; Fatma Müge Göçek, Denial of Violence. Ottoman Past, Turkish Present, and Collective Violence against the Armenians, Oxford 2015, 1-66; Talin Suciyan, Te Armenians in Modern Turkey. Post-Genocide Society, Politics and His- tory, London 2016; Jennifer M. Dixon, Dark Pasts. Changing the State’s Story in Turkey and Japan, Ithaca 2018, 32-94; Ömer Turan/Güven Gürkan Öztan, Devlet Aklı ve 1915. Türkiye’de ‘Ermeni Meselesi’ Anlatısının İnşası [Raison d’État and 1915. Te Construction of the ‘Armenian Question’ Narrative in Turkey], Istanbul 2018. 2 For a lucid account of the history of the concept of genocide, see: Ann Curthoys/John Docker, Defning Geno- cide, in: Dan Stone (ed.), Te Historiography of Genocide, Basingstoke 2008, 9-41. Vol. 8|2020|No.2 https://doi.org/10.23777/SN.0220 | www.vwi.ac.at