Sociologists categorize political developments into three types:
Actions—events whose meaning becomes clear either immediately or over time.
Signals—indicators that carry practical significance but are open to multiple, even opposing, interpretations.
Symbols—gestures that do not impose obligations on anyone but may be perceived as signals if desired. Symbolic acts mainly reflect the worldview of their authors rather than conveying a concrete message.
For example, when the mother of a prominent politician raises both middle fingers at opposition protesters, her gesture does not convey a specific message but instead reveals something about her perspective.
Distinguishing between signals and symbols is challenging but not impossible. Take, for instance, French President Emmanuel Macron warmly embracing Zelensky or Pashinyan—it is primarily symbolic. However, it transforms into a signal if France subsequently provides Armenia or Ukraine with weapons capable of effectively countering external aggression. Similarly, when the French Ambassador to Armenia states that Armenia recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan under the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration, that is not merely symbolic—it is a clear and deliberate signal. The underlying message is easily “read”: “Do not blame your government, citizens of Armenia, for surrendering Artsakh. It was already given away long ago.” This interpretation aligns with one of the Armenian government’s key propaganda narratives.
Read also
How to Interpret Signals. Interpreting political signals depends largely on perspective. Pashinyan, for example, periodically claims that he receives positive signals from Turkey and Azerbaijan. Consider a recent statement by Hikmet Hajiyev, an advisor to the President of Azerbaijan, who suggested that if Armenia truly seeks peace, it should extradite “war criminals” allegedly hiding within its borders. This is undoubtedly a signal—but is it positive or negative?
For me, it is negative. I do not view the liberation of Artsakh and the establishment of its statehood as a crime. On the contrary, I consider it one of the most honorable chapters in our modern history. However, Pashinyan might see it differently. From his perspective, this could be a positive signal, as it presents an opportunity to simultaneously eliminate potential political rivals and appease Aliyev by handing over figures such as the second and third presidents of Armenia or Samvel Babayan.
Political orientations are, of course, fluid. A year ago, many in Armenian society viewed the world as divided between two opposing forces: the “progressive” West, represented by Europe and the United States, and the authoritarian “evil” embodied by Putin’s Russia. Today, perceptions have shifted—Europe remains the symbol of a “bright democratic future,” but the United States has now joined the ranks of “villains” in the eyes of many. Unfortunately, these shifting orientations influence how people interpret signals from Washington.
This is regrettable. More attention should be paid to these signals, as they offer valuable insight into the direction in which the world is moving.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
