Preamble (introduction)
A few weeks after I watched the ‘Mother Armenia’ episode of Keeping up with the Kardashians: I spoke to an Armenian girlfriend about how horrified and triggered I felt by it. “Was it that bad?” she asked. My response, in retrospect, was barely coherent and quite aggressive — I remember using the words disgusting, hypocrisy, and fuck several times. Although it was not the first time I had attempted to articulate my opinion on this topic, I still hadn’t adequately unpacked all my rage.
All too often do I find myself in situations with strangers, particularly men, who say “like Kim Kardashian?” after I tell them that I am of Armenian descent. All too often do folks, mostly Armenians, react in defense of her when I try to explain why this particular misrepresentation is problematic. “She’s a brilliant businesswoman!”, “She’s doing so much for Armenian genocide recognition!”, and, “Who cares if she became famous because of a sex-tape? Now people know about us!” What I hear is she’s famous and rich — what are you doing with your life that’s any better? As long as she’s serving our
cause, we won’t ask questions… plus, it’s sooo annoying having to explain my lineage and culture to people.
Well, you know what is even more annoying? Having to explain myself out of a Kardashian vacuum, or watching a man tilt his head to the side in order to get a better look at my backside — to confirm whether I really share a ‘heritage’ with the Kardashians.
My girlfriend, on the other hand, did not react to my rant in a way that caused frustration. In fact, her reaction is what called me to this paper’s focus. She asked me, point blank, “why do you hate her so much?” I was stunned, confused, embarrassed, and completely speechless. I realized that there was something bigger happening here. It’s more than just taking offense to the episode’s Indian musical score (because who else, other than actual Armenians, would notice the difference?) set against the backdrop of a landscape that carves out and into my identity and being; my motherland, my history, my home. I’m not just being a ‘hater’, and this isn’t just about Kim Kardashian. It finally dawned on me after all this time, that I had been projecting my anger and resentment towards the isms and phobias that persist in the Armenian communities I have come from, belonged to, raged against and long fought to reconcile. Kim’s trip to Armenia, for me, exemplified the clashing of paradigms within Armenian identities, cloaked in the guise of nationalism.
So, this piece is neither a witch-hunt, nor is it internalized sexism wrapped up in the standard Kim-bashing. Instead, I’m hoping to understand the nuanced causality around the megalith of Kim Kardashian as one that both highlights and pushes the shift away from the hypocrisy that exists within Armenian society and culture.
Season 10, Episode 14 of Keeping up with the Kardashians: “Mother Armenia”
Mother Armenia (Armenian: Մայր Հայաստան Mayr Hayastan) is a female personification of Armenia. Her most public visual rendering is a monumental statue in Victory Park overlooking the capital city of Yerevan, Armenia.
Long before the centennial, I heard some Armenian folks mention that they are no longer Obama supporters because he failed to push forward the genocide recognition agenda. Earlier this year, a video went viral amongst both mainstream and Armenian audiences of Amal Clooney presenting her case to the European Court of Human Rights against Turkish politician Dogu Perincek, a well-known genocide denier. For a fleeting moment, Amal was the heroine of the only diasporan Armenian cause that truly matters. Yet, it seems that she was just keeping the seat warm for Kim.
Figuring out how Kim Kardashian’s perceived transformation reflects the complexities of Armenian identity and unconscious is what brought me to this page.
For those of you who have not watched the episode, here’s a quick rundown: along with her husband (Kanye West), daughter (North), sister (Khloe), and sizeable entourage, Kim took a trip to Armenia, during which they made several public appearances, visited ancestral lands and sites, and enjoyed the local culture. They mention that their trip was largely motivated by their Armenian father, who passed away while they were children and had wanted them to visit their motherland. Their reactions weren’t too dissimilar from those of typical Armenian-American tourists, like when Kim, for example, tells her sister “I still can’t believe they have KFC in Armenia.”
The primary narrative of the episode follows the family’s discovery of their ancestral roots, alongside a crash course on Armenian genocide awareness. Perfectly timed with the Armenian genocide centennial, the telling of the Kardashians’ heritage and emotional connection to the land and history holds the most substance in the show. The scene that followed their visit to Dzidzernagapert, the Armenian genocide memorial, seemingly evoked the most emotion from both the Kardashian family and their audiences.
The Dark Horse (who’s betting on her and why)
The full definition of a dark horse is a) a usually little known contender (as a racehorse) that makes an unexpectedly good showing and b) an entrant in a contest that is judged unlikely to succeed. When I refer to Kim Kardashian as a dark horse, it is neither a reference to the (offensive) ‘dark’ element of her exoticization, nor an allusion to her rise to A-lister celebrity status. I believe Kim is a dark horse specifically because of her transformation in the eyes of the Armenian population. Armen Arakelyan writes on this shift in Hetq Online:
The other phenomenon of this revolution of perceptions is the transformation of Kim Kardashian’s character itself. Before stepping onto Armenian soil, she was perceived of as a woman of “loose” morals in the Armenian public eye. A woman, given her entire nature, lie and conduct, didn’t fit within the entrenched mold of an Armenian woman in our society. However, during her time here in Armenia, she has easily transformed from a porno star, as described by many, into a heroic woman concerned with national affairs and one exhibiting a will to struggle.
Before I explain further, I will outline the reason why I avoid using adjectives like ‘traditionally’ or ‘typically’ when referring to sexism and misogyny within Armenian communities. I do this because I refuse to believe that this is the ultimate truth about Armenians, with whom I share a heritage and history, or that it’s inherently in our nature of being in the world and with each other. That’s not to say that sexism and misogyny doesn’t exist within Armenian communities (the patriarchy is alive and well, and, we are here to crush it!). What’s relevant here is that the idolization of Kim Kardashian offers evidence of how cheap and fickle the patriarchal praxis is — for those who perpetuate it to also sell it off so easily along with their sexist and anti-Black values. Because, apparently, she plays for our team now, and all sins shall be forgiven in the name of the Armenian nationalist agenda. This is why Kim’s metamorphosis into the “princess of Armenia” embodies such a flagrant double standard.
When I expressed my disbelief over the blatant hypocrisy of the glorification of Kim Kardashian to my partner, he reminded me that cognitive dissonance is real. Zooming out, I wonder how her audience also fits into these contradicting paradigms, and how that becomes more complicated when referring to Armenians, a very complicated people. But, it is also crucial to understand the paradigms at play here.
In addition to the publicization of genocide awareness tugging at the heartstrings of the diasporan history of trauma and political agenda, a celebrity like Kim is appealing on a further level. For Armenian audiences, and particularly for diasporans, she embodies both the ethnic (the figure of the ‘good Armenian woman’; the virgin, the martyr) and the assimilated (white-passing, wealthy, famous). Her identity is a seemingly perfect solution to our cultural and transnational struggle, and illustrates Homi Bhabha’s concept of colonial mimicry, as they strive to become “almost the same but not white.”
In some ways, this model is also attractive to post-soviet Armenian audiences. The “Mother Armenia” episode depicts massive crowds showing up outside the Marriott hotel to greet the Kardashians upon their well-documented arrival. For these crowds, Kim becomes a symbol of Western ideals and therefore a vehicle for gaining visibility.
In a country with such a homogeneous ethnic population, folks don’t often have the chance to tell others about themselves or their culture. Then there is the fact that they are, due to the oppressive politics of their government, citizens who feel silenced and unheard. Kim becomes a platform for them to project their need for visibility onto, and in turn, she makes them feel visible through her notoriety.
Internalized oppression is also at play here: Kim is an affirmation that they are still human, that they still have a voice in the world. In discussing her thoughts on Kim’s trip to Armenia with a diasporan friend of mine who is currently living and working as a journalist in Yerevan, I was given the impression that there was a humanizing element to the Kardashian’s visit.
At the same time, a neo-liberal agenda is at play here (yes, it made its way to the Caucasus), in what another diasporan Armenian friend and activist has referred to as a colonization of psyches. It tells both diasporans and local Armenians that the ultimate version of yourself is rich, beautiful, and famous.
Kim Kardashian has been credited in the press for the Armenian people’s conscientization and current uprising against their government’s actions. In her article “How Kim Kardashian Liberated Armenia” published in The Daily Beast, Anna Nemtsova attributes inspiration for the mass protests over rising electricity rates to Kim Kardashian’s recent trip to Armenia. This perception completely erases the voices and struggles of the local population, and the grassroots counter-hegemonic movements that oppose government corruption and backchannel politicizing with Russia.
Herein lies a dangerous example of how a paradigm shift can be appropriated by the press and used to benefit for their own political agenda or public image. This is also true of the over-embellished coverage of Kim’s championing of Armenian genocide recognition. In highlighting her momentary visit to Armenia, all the genocide awareness and recognition efforts previous to Kim’s acknowledgement of the atrocities of 1915 are completely shadowed.
Erasing Ethnicity and the Transformation of Kim’s Image (amongst Armenians)
A few months ago, I saw my mother with curly hair. It was the weekend, and she decided to leave it ‘undone’ after bathing. This was a rare occasion. I asked her, “Mom, why do you straighten your hair so much? It kills your hair, and your curls are so beautiful.” Her response to me was “Oh honey, I can’t wear my hair curly to work, it’s unprofessional…”
This is a prime example of the internal identity struggles of an Armenian woman in a world plagued with ideals of ‘beauty as white’. Particularly among the diasporan population, and in Armenia since the socio-economic shift after the fall of the Soviet Union, women are told (via an indoctrination of Western ideologies) that being and looking more white is a goal that should be attained. This may come from a residual fear of falling victim to violence based on the ethnic cleansing of Armenians during the genocide of 1915 (so, being less Armenian and more white means being less of a target to racism). Or, it’s rooted in the hopes and fears around assimilation in the Western world after migration, more specifically for women, through a subconscious rebellion against aspects of Armenian identity that manifest in the form of hetero-normative patriarchal culture. Kim Kardashian is the ultimate embodiment of a warped solution to that struggle.
Her shift in image and rise to fame speaks into this twofold. First, Kim started out as the underdog, then came out on top. She entered the scene as the sidekick of socialite Paris Hilton (the whitest, most privileged female celebrity, possibly ever). When Kim started garnering attention from the media, Paris began to badmouth her in public. During a radio interview, she said, “I would not want [Kim’s butt] — it’s gross! …It reminds me of cottage cheese inside a big trash bag”. Years after this obscenely racist attempt to tarnish Kim’s reputation in the public’s eye, ‘Kim’s butt’ has become the defining feature of her fame, and one that is now embraced and mimicked amongst her audiences. Through careful marketing of her identity and reputation, she became bigger than Paris, deemed as a clever business woman.
Second, her victory was based on both playing what some call the ‘ethnic card’ as well as discarding it vis a vis her fame and fortune; therefore, she is both exotic and loved by the masses. In an article for The Hye-Phen Magazine, Shakar Mujukian unpacks the “interplay between structural oppressions (and identity politics) around race, class and gender” through an analysis of Kim’s infamous photo shoot for Paper Magazine. He points out that Kim’s “ethnic otherness” is erased in the image because she has class privilege. Shakar writes:
This implies to me that Armenians (as well as other ethnic minorities) in the US must satisfy the stereotype of being raised in economically disadvantaged immigrant families (like mine) in order to be fully recognized as ethnic minorities. Symbiotically, this also means that assimilated (and especially wealthy), ethnically ambiguous minorities like West Asians can access white-passing privilege […] She’s benefiting from multiple systems of oppression. The media does not know how to racially categorize her […] As a mixed person, she’s the orientalist wet dream, meaning that she’s pre-packaged with ‘exotic’ features typically ascribed to Middle Eastern women, but with lighter skin, wealth, virtual sexual accessibility, and no cultural or religious context.Even in the ‘Mother Armenia’ episode, it is clear that regardless of their identification with Armenian heritage and history, they see themselves as being separate from other Armenian people. For example, while a group of traditional Armenian dancers dine and entertain them, Khloe refers to one of them, “Oh, Princess Jasmine is dancin’ and dancin’.”
The Kardashians are both relating to and disassociating themselves from their ethnicity, and this is further perpetuated through the media’s representation and the audience’s reception of them.
Just as they connect and disconnect themselves from their ethnicity, consciously or not, so do their Armenian and mainstream audiences. Both the staged ‘reality’ television show and Kim’s character feel disorienting to grasp at times. Their public personae are their private personae, or at least that is how they present it to the world. This blurring of these lines renders it difficult to truly understand their motives, which in turn muddle their audiences’ understanding of what they represent. Meanwhile, in this convoluted storm of identity commodification and exploitation, plastic surgery inspired by the Kardashians is on the rise; and it even has a name: the ‘Dash’ effect.
Is Kim a tangible ‘idol’ because she now identifies as both Armenian and embodies the wealth and whiteness we have all been brainwashed into yearning for?