Noting an overreliance on North American and European-based understandings of race and ethnicity, many sociologists have called for research in new spaces. But the same conceptual and regional limitations apply to several other studies. One example of this is multiculturalism. Scholars tend to associate multiculturalism with international migration and ethnic pluralism. As such, they typically study multiculturalism in the most ethnically diverse (and often most affluent) countries – that is, in Europe and North America. But international migration does not always result in ethnic pluralism. For example, diasporic return migration often leads to the convergence of internally diverse co-ethnic populations in ethnically homogeneous nation-states. The diasporic ‘returnees’, who were born outside of their perceived homelands, come through targeted migration policies, face various levels of discrimination, and yet contribute significantly to the economic development and cultural diversity of the countries to which they relocate. As such, this article argues that the multiculturalization of monoethnic nationhood is substantially driven by diasporic return migration. In exploring diasporic multiculturalism, the article draws from data collected in Yerevan, Armenia.

Scholars have identified the important roles personal characteristics — such as religion, gender, and race — play in influencing policymakers' position-taking behavior. One important yet overlooked personal characteristic is generation. This personal characteristic is not only influencing individual policymakers’ position-taking behavior; it is also changing some important political realities across Europe. An illustrative example of these changes is Finland's decision to join NATO. Based on documentary analyses of parliamentary speeches and personal interviews with Finnish officials, this article demonstrates that Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine revealed already established, generation-based cleavages among MPs whose parties had long opposed the prospect of joining NATO. The speeches also reveal a dynamic and evolving orientation to the Baltic states among an emerging political cohort of Finnish MPs, who have been socialized in a fully EU-integrated Finland. 

Scholars have analyzed how political actors appropriate Holocaust-related memory laws to whitewash the past and undermine democratic traditions in various European countries. However, political actors in Europe have debated several other memory laws, which far-right MPs appropriate to serve their own purposes. The recognition of the Armenian Genocide is an understudied example of this phenomenon. Drawing from data collected in four countries—Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, and Sweden—this analysis introduces the rhetorical strategies of memory justification and memory extrapolation to examine how far-right MPs, in very distinct geopolitical contexts, appropriate and instrumentalize Armenian Genocide memory to attack pluralism and promote their own versions of Europe. Through an analysis of the instrumentalization of the Armenian Genocide, this article examines a growing crisis at the center of contemporary European politics. This crisis, which involves actors promoting very different goals and values, increasingly threatens the socio-political cohesion of Europe.

Scholars often emphasize how right-wing political actors in Europe use memory laws to undermine democratic traditions and revise historical accounts. But a broad range of political actors (with diverse motivations) support memory laws. Synthesizing research in international political sociology and memory politics, this analysis examines the relational and social practices of diplomats from small states and the creative strategies of center-left political insiders in the creation and passage of memory laws. Based on data collected in the Czech Republic, the article investigates how relational and social dynamics, in part, inspired members of parliament (from the Czech Social Democratic Party) to insert Armenian Genocide recognition into memory laws about the Holocaust and Second World War in the Chamber of Deputies (2017) and the Senate (2020) – a strategy I refer to as memory fusion. In developing the framework of memory fusion, however, the findings also explore how Turkish diplomats use a similar strategy to pursue their own goals.

Transitional justice scholarship has importantly analyzed how European groups use Holocaust-related legislation to create a unified political culture. While this research has made many valuable contributions, it does not include various other external actors, who also influence European political culture through transitional justice measures related to the Holocaust. This analysis expands the existing research about transitional justice and Holocaust restitution by analyzing the influential role U.S. intermediation played in Latvia’s 2022 Holocaust restitution law. The findings of this research do not contradict the existing scholarship; rather, they broaden it by unpacking how the U.S. influences European political culture through Holocaust restitution legislation.

International student migration (ISM) makes up an increasingly significant part of all international migration. Scholars have unpacked various aspects of this global mobility. While ISM scholarship has largely focused on a particular stream of migration—namely, student migration from the Global South to the Global North—recent studies have expanded this research to include more diverse case studies. ISM scholarship has also analysed education agents, who provide migration infrastructures and enable student mobility (or, in some cases, immobility). But the scholarship's characterisations of these agents remain somewhat limited: Studies focus largely on the oversized role agents play in student recruitment processes—that is, as those who enable initial mobility. This paper analyzes a unique case study—Indian medical students in Yerevan, Armenia—to unpack education agents' extensive, oftentimes problematic roles in structuring students' postmigration experiences.

Scholars have done a great deal to unpack the motivations sitting behind nationalists’ appropriation of Holocaust-related memory laws in several eastern European and Baltic states. While these accounts have shed important light on memory politics, there remains much scope for further study. For example, several Eastern European and Baltic states have passed resolutions recognizing the Armenian genocide, as well. Furthermore, the existing literature does not provide any analytical tools to conceptualize the dynamic and complex processes giving rise to memory laws. This article broadens the memory laws scholarship through an original analysis of Latvia's Armenian genocide recognition resolution of 2021. The findings highlight how diverse actors support and pass memory laws through a process of constructivist memory politics. Constructivist memory politics involves the strategies political actors employ to change the salience or meaning of historical events in the creation and promotion of memory laws. Although the analysis focuses on a single case, it provides the analytical tools to reorient how scholars approach memory laws both in Europe and elsewhere.

Ethnopolitical Entrepreneurs presents the story of the Armenians of Glendale, California. Coming from Argentina, Armenia, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Russia, Syria, and many other countries, this group is internally fragmented and often has limited experience with the American political system. Nonetheless, Glendale's Armenians have rapidly mobilized and remade an American suburban space in their own likeness.

In telling their story, Daniel Fittante expands our understanding of US political history. From the late nineteenth-century onward, Irish, Italian, Jewish, and several other immigrant populations in large American cities began changing the country's political reality. The author shows how Glendale's Armenians—as well as many other immigrants—are now changing the country's political reality within its dynamic, multiethnic suburbs. The processes look different in various suburban contexts, but the underlying narrative holds: immigrant populations converge on suburban areas and ambitious political actors develop careers by driving coethnics' political incorporation.

Scholars have unpacked the rhetorically nuanced ways political actors alter state narratives in resisting pressure to comply with international norms. But many of these rhetorical strategies apply in other contexts, where there exists sufficient norm ambiguity, too. For example, in response to Turkey's long-standing denialism, many governments have been asked to recognise the Armenian Genocide (or 1915 Genocide of Christians in the Ottoman Empire). But, because there exists no clear international norm about recognising genocides perpetuated by other states, even some of the most unlikely government officials adapt their rhetoric to resist recognition and pursue ulterior foreign policy objectives. Building on Dixon's rhetorical adaptation framework, this article argues that, between 1999 and 2021, Swedish political actors often adapted their rhetoric in ways similar to Turkish officials as a result of the normative ambiguity of states recognising the Armenian Genocide. In explaining why Sweden consistently resisted Genocide recognition efforts, this analysis focuses on its larger foreign policy commitments of spreading democracy in Turkey and managing the Syrian refugee crisis.

Ethnic communities adapt diverse strategies to mobilise in distinct geopolitical settings. The scholarship has done much to unpack how large, marginalised ethnic communities intermediate between themselves and the state. Nonetheless, these analyses have largely neglected smaller, more prosperous ethnic communities. This article seeks to broaden the scholarship on ethnic intermediation by presenting a case study of contemporary Australian Armenians in New South Wales. Although quite small in demographic concentration, this community has intermediated successfully in the passage of a broad range of legislation and reallocated important, symbolic state resources. The analysis thus demonstrates how Armenian Australians have devised context-specific strategies to intermediate on behalf of their ethnic community’s interests. More specifically, Australian Armenians have intermediated and influenced legislation by (1) forming strategic coalitions and (2) challenging Australian national narratives. The findings of this research begin to unpack how ‘elite’ populations actually bargain with state officials to achieve their personal and organisational interests.