Communication and autocommunication in Henri Verneuil’s autobiography Mayrig

1 Introduction

Autobiographical narratives serve as a significant means for individuals to share their personal experiences with a broad audience, emerging as prominent cultural vehicles for self-expression and documentation of personal or community narratives. Henri Verneuil’s autobiography, Mayrig (2005), stands as a vital cultural artifact that actively shapes and transmits the Armenian community’s memory across time and space.

This paper argues that Verneuil’s Mayrig, through its narrative strategies and the evocative reenactment of cultural practices like food preparation, uniquely expands Lotman’s “I-I” autocommunication system to reveal a collective, intergenerational processing of Armenian diasporic postmemory of the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide. By critically analyzing this mechanism through the lens of Philippe Lejeune’s autobiographical pact, Caruth’s understanding of traumatic memory, Marianne Hirsch’s theory of postmemory, and Juri Lotman’s semiotic framework of “I-I” autocommunication, Mayrig transforms individual trauma into a shared identity. Furthermore, this study demonstrates how Mayrig revises Lejeune’s autobiographical pact to encompass the complex, multifaceted self-representation inherent in transnational, diasporic identity. The text thus moves beyond documentation, actively reconstructing Armenian diasporic identity as a vibrant, intergenerational dialogue.

2 Theoretical framework

Autobiography has long been characterized by a tension between factual recounting and subjective narrative construction. Henri Verneuil’s Mayrig (2005) challenges this tension, offering a new perspective on autobiographical theory. While Philippe Lejeune’s (1996: 14) “autobiographical pact” posits an explicit identity between author, narrator, and protagonist as a foundational generic marker, Mayrig’s strategic use of a dual identity (Ashod Malakian as protagonist, Henri Verneuil as author) demonstrates that any autobiographical pact must take into account the multifaceted self-representation of diasporic and transnational subjects.

Within this reconfigured autobiographical space, Mayrig emerges as a crucial site for the transmission of traumatic memories and postmemory. Trauma, understood as a “psychical wound” (Caruth 1996) that resists conventional narration (Erll 2011a), finds a potent voice in autobiography. More specifically, Mayrig foregrounds postmemory, Marianne Hirsch’s (2012: 243) concept describing the “quasi-memories” of inherited traumatic experiences that shape the second generation, even those not directly present at the initial event. Verneuil, as a child of genocide survivors, becomes a powerful conduit for these “borrowed memories.” This dynamic is critical within the Armenian context, as the Armenian diaspora’s very formation, as Khachig Tölölyan (1996: 12) articulates, fundamentally stemmed from “coercion that leads to the uprooting and resettlement outside the boundaries of the homeland,” most notably following the 1915 Genocide. This forced dispersion contributed to an enduring national loss, while simultaneously solidifying a “clearly delimited identity” that diasporic communities actively maintain (Tölölyan 1996: 13). It is within this profound historical and diasporic framework that Verneuil’s intensely personal recollections transform into a collective historical narrative for the Armenian community, specifically through what Aarons and Berger (2017: 40) term “borrowed memories.” This deep engagement with inherited trauma further aligns with scholarship on Armenian identity, which highlights how the 1915 genocide led to the mythologization of a “lost homeland” that became a defining pillar of Armenian identity (Wilmers and Chernobrov 2020: 5). While the resulting community is heterogenous, fragmented by geography (e.g., French-Armenian vs. American-Armenian) and generational experience, it is unified by this “binding sense of national loss” (Wilmers and Chernobrov 2020). Mayrig addresses this fragmentation not by ignoring it, but by offering a foundational, shared semiotic space, a “collective I-I,” that temporarily reunites this diverse group through recognizable, core cultural symbols like the pakhlava ritual.

Furthermore, studies consistently show that intergenerational memories of the Genocide are central to Armenian collective identity in the diaspora, particularly among youth, deeply shaping their sense of self and belonging (Levenson 2021). This transformation exemplifies Stuart Hall’s (1990) assertion that cultural identity is not a static inheritance but a continuous “process of becoming,” actively shaped by collective memory and the ongoing adaptation required by diasporic existence. Verneuil’s narrative thus participates in the very act of cultural formation for his community, moving beyond mere documentation to active construction. Mayrig’s articulation of intergenerational trauma exemplifies autobiography’s capacity to transcend personal expression, acting as a cultural and ethical medium for preserving collective memory. By embedding a traumatic historical past within contemporary identity, the text not only sustains diasporic continuity but also functions as a form of resistance, working to prevent the repetition of historical atrocities through remembrance, recognition, and narrative transmission, which is an active rather than a passive process of communication.

This analysis also employs Juri Lotman’s semiotic model of communication, particularly the “I-I” (autocommunication) system. While the classic “I-s/he” system addresses external information transfer, the “I-I” system, often overlooked, describes an internal dialogue that occurs “in time” (Lotman 1990: 21). Crucially, this study argues that Mayrig demonstrates an expanded “collective I-I” model, where the act of autobiography becomes a shared semiotic space for the Armenian diaspora to process inherited memory and forge collective identity. This framework distinguishes itself from other collective memory models by its focus on the internal semiotic mechanism of the text itself. Unlike Jan Assmann’s concept of “communicative memory” (2010), which focuses on everyday, informal social interaction as the mechanism for memory transfer within a few generations, the “collective I-I” model emphasizes the textual recoding of the author’s personal trauma into a cultural memory archive that is perpetually reactivated by diasporic readers in an internal, temporal dialogue with the text’s symbols. Similarly, while Astrid Erll’s concept of “travelling memory” (2011b) addresses the geographical movement of memory across space, Lotman’s expanded model explains the mechanism of continuity and transmission across time: the author’s past self (I) creating the coded message (the text) that is constantly decoded and recoded by the collective diasporic present (collective I), thereby ensuring cultural survival. Thus, “collective I-I” is not a static memory archive but a dynamic, coded dialogue where the text acts as a cultural mechanism for identity construction. While Lotman’s original model focuses on the individual’s internal dialogue, this study proposes a “collective I-I” mechanism, where the text acts as a semiotic bridge connecting the diasporic author to a collective “I” – a shared reader identity that recognizes and reactivates the cultural codes embedded in the narrative.

Additionally, this framework is particularly illuminating for Mayrig as it allows us to analyze how Verneuil’s personal act of remembering becomes a form of self-reflection that simultaneously activates and shapes collective memory. Such narrative strategies also align with Sharon Macdonald’s (2012: 234) concept of “past presencing,” which considers how individuals variously draw on, experience, negotiate, reconstruct, and perform the past in their ongoing lives. In Mayrig, Verneuil doesn’t merely recount the past; he actively makes it present through detailed descriptions of cultural practices and emotional experiences, thereby enabling readers to engage with and “perform” these inherited memories. The second “I” in Lotman’s model, in the context of Mayrig, extends beyond the author’s past self to encompass a broader collective “I” – the shared identity of the Armenian diaspora. This integrated approach, bringing together Lejeune’s pact, Caruth’s trauma, Hirsch’s postmemory, and Lotman’s autocommunication, enables a nuanced understanding of how Mayrig not only records but actively reconstructs Armenian diasporic identity through a vibrant, intergenerational dialogue. Indeed, while Marianne Hirsch’s postmemory focuses on the content and emotional weight of inherited traumatic experiences, Lotman’s expanded “I-I” autocommunication offers the crucial mechanism for actively processing, recoding, and transmitting these memories across generations.

3 Mayrig as a site of postmemory and autocommunication

Mayrig (2005) is the autobiography of French playwright and film director of Armenian origin Henri Verneuil (born Ashod Malakian, 1920–2002). From its very title, Mayrig, a Western Armenian word for “mother,” the book asserts a profound connection to Armenian heritage, yet its publication under “Henri Verneuil” immediately signals a complex negotiation of identity. This paradoxical authorship directly challenges Lejeune’s (1996) autobiographical pact, where author and narrator are presumed to be identical. Verneuil’s strategic adoption of a French alter ego reflects the inherent double nature of a migrant identity, suggesting that the author’s public persona is a carefully constructed representation of the journey required to survive and thrive in French society. This deliberate distance between authorial and narrative “I,” Ashod Malakian (protagonist/Armenian self) and Henri Verneuil (author/French alter ego) compels a reconsideration of Lejeune’s autobiographical pact. The narrative structure itself mirrors the diasporic condition: it is a negotiation between the inherited, traumatic “I” and the assimilated, public “I.” By using the French name to publish an Armenian personal story, Verneuil ensures that the autobiographical contract is fulfilled not through simple identity but through a strategic, layered presentation. Such a multidimensional approach to the self is dissimilar to other narratives on the Armenian Genocide. For example, Verneuil’s Mayrig contrasts sharply with the explicit forensic, historical approach found in Peter Balakian’s Black Dog of Fate (2009). While Balakian emphasizes the search for factual record, Verneuil’s Mayrig prioritizes the emotional and cultural transmission of postmemory through the intimate, everyday rituals of his mother(s). Furthermore, unlike Antionia Arslan’s Skylark Farm (2006), which uses fiction and Christian humanist themes to make Armenian trauma legible within a broader European framework, Mayrig remains autobiographical while achieving a pan-diasporic resonance. This positioning reveals that Verneuil’s specific contribution lies in using the dual identity of the author to create an accessible narrative bridge for both the French public and a fragmented Armenian diaspora.

Ashod Malakian’s strategic choice to publish Mayrig under the name “Henri Verneuil,” while telling his personal story, does more than raise questions about Lejeune’s autobiographical pact; it invites a reconsideration of how that pact applies to diasporic and transnational lives. His use of a dual identity shows that for those who live between cultures, the connection between author and narrator is not always simple or direct, necessitating a strategic, layered presentation of the self. Thus, Mayrig advances autobiographical theory by demonstrating that the narrator’s “I” is not always distinct or stable but profoundly shaped by the intricacies of displacement and cultural hybridity, advocating for a more flexible understanding of identity representation in diasporic autobiography.

Verneuil’s narrative constructs a poignant history of Armenian migration to Marseille, emphasizing the long-term impacts of trauma and cultural displacement. As Marcou et al. (2016: 17–18) suggest, autobiography can be driven by a desire to explain, testify, or find a sense of existence. For Verneuil, Mayrig is a complex confession: his struggles as an Armenian immigrant in early 20th-century French Marseille intertwine with his family’s migration story and the enduring legacy of the Armenian Genocide. This makes the autobiography a critical example of how individual self-expression becomes a vehicle for collective memory in shaping diasporic identity. The numerous passages devoted to the Armenian Genocide highlight its driving force, serving as autocommunication (Lotman’s “I-I” system) with fellow Armenians to preserve collective memory, while simultaneously functioning as “I-s/he” communication to inform French readers about the tragic past of their compatriots of Armenian origin.

The profound impact of inherited trauma, central to Hirsch’s postmemory, is vividly illustrated through Ashod’s childhood experience. His encounter with stories of genocide survivors marks a pivotal moment, brutally tearing him from innocence:

On this 24th of April, 1927, at an age when life was conceived in the image of story-book heroes, I was brutally torn from my world of enchantment. Motionless in my chair, I listened to these men with funeral faces recall their dead … I was no longer a child. (Verneuil 2005: 47–48)

April 24 marks the annual commemoration of the Armenian Genocide, a solemn and deeply significant day for Armenians worldwide. In his work, Verneuil deliberately references this date, not merely by mentioning “that day” or “the remembrance day,” but by explicitly situating it within the historical and emotional context of the genocide. This choice serves to inform readers unfamiliar with Armenian history about the global observance of this tragic event. The passage operates on multiple communicative levels: it functions within both the “I-I” system, reflecting a shared cultural and emotional experience, and the “I-s/he” system, extending the narrative to an external audience who may not share the same historical background.

Verneuil’s use of the phrase “brutally torn” conveys the sudden and violent rupture of childhood innocence, echoing Cathy Caruth’s view of trauma as a nonlinear, overwhelming experience. This is not a gradual awakening but an abrupt imposition of historical trauma onto the child’s psyche. The contrast between the “world of enchantment” and this violent language underscores the shock and irreversible loss of a carefree existence.

Verneuil also employs sensory and postural details to highlight the internalization of inherited trauma. Ashod is described as “motionless in my chair,” a posture that signals passive but intense absorption, as if the weight of the narratives physically immobilizes him. The image of “men with funeral faces” imbues the scene with sorrow, transmitting the emotional residue of genocide through direct sensory experience. In this instance, postmemory shifts from abstract concept to physical sensation; trauma is felt in the body as much as it is processed by the mind.

The declarative phrase “I was no longer a child” marks a crucial narrative, psychological, and semiotic turning point in Ashod’s development, signifying a profound transformation from individual innocence to a collective, diasporic identity shaped by historical trauma. This shift aligns with Hirsch’s (2012) description of the diasporic subject as “always marginal or exiled,” underscoring that this is not merely psychological maturation; it is a narratively constructed moment of identity transformation where the signifier “child” is replaced by a self-perception burdened with the weight of inherited history. Best understood through Lotman’s “I-I” autocommunication model, this instance of internal recoding allows Ashod to adopt an adult awareness of suffering he never directly witnessed, thereby actively constructing the “quasi-memories” central to postmemory. Ultimately, this pivotal moment demonstrates how narrative autocommunication serves as the active mechanism through which inherited memory takes form, solidifying postmemory as a defining element of second-generation identity.

4 Communicating memories through food: the pakhlava scene

The complexities of inherited memory and cultural identity in Mayrig are powerfully explored through the symbolic ritual of the preparation of pakhlava (the Armenian version of the Middle Eastern pastry baklava), where food functions as a potent means of building “home” in a foreign land. As Ghassan Hage (2010: 416) notes, food and home are intricately linked in memory. Mattias Strand (2023: 467) further emphasizes how food memories, particularly family meals and generational recipes, shape identity and connect to the past, embodying social and emotional bonds formed through shared culinary rituals, especially in contexts of cultural loss.

This deep engagement with food rituals aligns with Hariyatmi’s (2019) concept of food as an “invisible bridge” for diasporic identity, a function Verneuil explicitly explores by portraying pakhlava as a meticulous act of homebuilding and cultural preservation, embodying the “myths, symbols, and traditions” that Panossian (2002: 123) identifies as central to an imagined nation, fostering its “subjective sense of belonging” even when physically distant from the homeland.

Verneuil’s depiction of pakhlava goes beyond mere description; it is a semiotic act that embodies his complex relationship with his “Armenianness.” Although he claims no memory of his homeland, the Armenian dishes remind him of his roots, in stark contrast to the surrounding French culture. While initially a point of childhood conflict, this very difference becomes the fertile ground for a profound dialogue of cultures that Verneuil meticulously crafts within the autobiography. Verneuil deliberately employs the familiar French dessert, mille-feuille, to create an entry point for his non-Armenian reader, drawing a parallel. This comparison is a clear example of Lotman’s “I-s/he” communication model in action, which typically occurs in space. Verneuil, the “I,” consciously attempts to explain his culture to the “s/he” (the non-Armenian reader) by bridging the unfamiliar with the familiar, thereby making his cultural heritage accessible and understandable; this strategy simultaneously activates the text’s dual communicative layers, serving the external audience while preserving the internal cultural code.

The pakhlava preparation in Mayrig functions as an active site of collective autocommunication, where shared memory is actively recoded through cultural ritual. Verneuil’s meticulous description of the communal process demonstrates the physical, intergenerational transfer of culinary skills and traditions:

On “pakhlava day,” a Sunday of course, we had to get up very early and set aside at least half a day for it. […] My father, my mother, my two aunts, seated in a circle around a clean cloth, would grab the sheet of dough in the flat of their hands and begin to pull on it. (2005: 26)

This ritual becomes the mechanism through which postmemory is not merely recalled but tangibly constructed and reinforced within the diasporic collective “I.” Through the act of writing, Verneuil revisits and reevaluates this crucial childhood memory, engaging in a dialogue not only with his younger self but also with fellow Armenians who would recognize and relate to this exact ritual. As Strand (2023: 467) notes, “food memories are not solely concerned with tastes and aromas but with people,” and here, the description of making pakhlava transcends simple food preparation. It transforms into a collective experience that solidifies shared memory and encourages other Armenians to reenact this familial love and nostalgia for the homeland, thereby extending Lotman’s original framework to a collective dimension of autocommunication. The pakhlava itself, as Verneuil explains, is imbued with layers of familial love, homesickness, and a pinch of his culture. Here, the culinary act becomes a symbolic representation of inherited memory, a tangible manifestation of postmemory that passes on cultural identity and embodies the family’s resilience in reestablishing a sense of belonging.

The pakhlava ritual, however, is not solely nostalgic; it also becomes a site of traumatic memory and social alienation. The scene where young Verneuil takes carefully prepared pakhlava to a French classmate’s birthday party is pivotal. Verneuil even depicts the meticulous instructions he received:

In case of thank you’s, I was to respond simply

“Oh it’s nothing at all, Madame … just a little specialty of ours.

The sentence was to end with one of those good wishes in which the oriental languages are so rich, but it seemed too ornate when I translated it into French and I decided to leave it out for modesty’s sake. (2005: 93)

The family’s hopes for his integration, symbolized by their most precious offering, are brutally shattered. Furthermore, the Armenian social custom contrasts sharply with the ensuing cultural misinterpretation and humiliation. Young Verneuil’s adherence to Armenian social customs, coupled with his “dandy” attire, immediately marks him as “different.” This leads to a series of cultural misinterpretations, escalating from being unfed to his classmate’s cruel taunt: Ashod “probably preferred lokhoom, couscous, and swallow’s nests. The mixture of the Orient, Africa, and China provoked yet another explosion of laughter” (2005: 99). This intentional misidentification and homogenization of distinct culinary traditions functions as a semiotic act of cultural erasure and othering. By confusing distinct Armenian heritage with a generalized, exoticized “Orient, Africa, and China,” his classmate strips Ashod of his unique identity, demonstrating how language can be weaponized to discredit, invalidate, and marginalize diasporic subjects.

The ultimate blow comes when young Verneuil discovers his family’s cherished pakhlava, given to the servants, is deemed “worthless” by the French host. His internal devastation is profound:

I stayed a moment in the dark, my head leaning against the large door of wrought iron and cathedral glass.

This had been the final attempt at acceptance I had once again found, with my woollen socks and my child’s woes, the warmth of my solitude. (2005: 102)

This scene is a powerful demonstration of how personal humiliation can echo collective trauma and reinforce a sense of “otherness.” The pakhlava, a symbol of family love and cultural pride, becomes a vehicle for traumatic memory for young Verneuil. His “solitude” is not just individual; it is the solitude of the diasporic subject confronting cultural rejection, a feeling echoed by the phrase “the warmth of my solitude,” suggesting a painful self-reliance or a retreat into the familiar comfort of internal alienation when external acceptance proves difficult, if not impossible. By recounting this seemingly mundane childhood event, Verneuil activates postmemory, allowing readers to feel the sting of exclusion that resonated with the larger historical experience of Armenian displacement and lack of recognition. The act of writing this memory serves as both “I-I” autocommunication, processing his childhood trauma, and “I-s/he” communication, exposing the subtle racism and cultural clashes faced by immigrants.

Ultimately, Mayrig functions as both a personal narrative and a compelling microhistory of integration. By activating postmemory through these everyday scenes, Verneuil utilizes “I-I” autocommunication to process childhood trauma while simultaneously employing “I-s/he” communication to bridge the cultural gap for a broader audience. The text thus transforms private pain into a shared medium for cultural transmission and communal resilience.

5 Conclusions

This analysis, especially through the detailed examination of the pakhlava scene, shows how Verneuil’s clever narrative choices engage in both autocommunication and outward cultural dialogue. This effectively transforms individual memories of trauma into a collective postmemory for the Armenian diaspora. Mayrig is thus more than just a personal account; it is a compelling microhistory that highlights the challenges faced by immigrants and the lasting impact of historical horrors like the Armenian Genocide. By transforming individual trauma into a shared narrative and promoting intergenerational dialogue, Mayrig subtly mobilizes a sense of shared identity and cultural pride, a foundational aspect of diaspora consciousness that can contribute to broader diaspora mobilization efforts for recognition and preservation. Furthermore, Mayrig serves as a crucial educational tool, illuminating the socio-historical realities of early twentieth-century France and the specific marginalization experienced by the Armenian diaspora.

By critically examining Verneuil’s narrative through the lens of Lejeune’s challenged autobiographical pact, Caruth’s insights into trauma, Hirsch’s concept of postmemory, and, importantly, Lotman’s models of autocommunication, this paper reveals how Mayrig actively reconstructs Armenian diasporic identity through an expanded semiotic process of communication. Ultimately, Verneuil’s autobiography demonstrates the powerful ability of the genre to go beyond simple self-expression or mere documentation. Instead, Mayrig’s complex negotiation of authorship, particularly through Verneuil’s dual identity, serves as a compelling case study for revising and expanding traditional autobiographical theory. It shows that a truly comprehensive understanding of the autobiographical pact must recognize the unique pressures, strategies, and multifaceted self-representations inherent in diasporic and transnational experiences. This is not a failure of autobiography but rather its powerful ability to adapt and express the most intricate forms of modern identity, solidifying its role as an important text in cultural memory studies.