“Studies conducted in many countries that have experienced military conflicts confirm that even after the end of hostilities, a high level of aggression is maintained in society, which can be manifested in interpersonal relationships (including domestic violence in families) and social relations.”, – WRITE: www.pravda.com.ua
The war, on the one hand, destroys the conditional limits of peacetime norms and becomes a factor in the socialization of aggression. On the other hand, we are constantly in a state of excessive psycho -emotional load, which exceeds the natural ability of the psyche to adapt. According to the results of Grade, 87 % of the population experience a very high level of stress. 39 % of respondents admit emotional burnout. This situation destroys the usual behaviors and can form the so -called frozen emotional states: violation of emotional regulation, self -control and reduction of the ability to empathy. In turn, poor reaction inhibition control implies a higher probability of participation in aggressive acts. Reactive aggression – for emotional protection of oneself, or proactive – for the sake of obtaining the desired.
Research shows that the end of the war does not mean the automatic restoration of changed norms and the level of aggression to those that have been in peacetime. In psychology, it is believed that of all affect, aggressiveness is the most difficult to overcome and at the same time one of those that penetrate the deepest. It is connected not only with a sense of anger, but also with a sense of shame, insult, feeling of injustice, irritation and frustration, as well as disappointment.
Advertising:
In view of this, it is worth looking at the conflict between the locals and the veteran, which recently occurred in Lviv in one of the branches of the bank, when the woman was indignant because the veteran is served outside the queue (although it is provided by law), on the other hand. In part of the population – those who personally or their families did not participate directly in the fighting – a meeting with the military may be shameful because of the inconsistency of the ideal image of a Ukrainian citizen or citizen. When we live such feelings, the other person who caused them becomes a person from whom we want to escape (turn away) or attack to cope with our own heavy emotions.
In one of the personal conversations, I recently heard the story that the entrepreneur refused to hire the former military because he could not look in his eyes. But if you turn away, how will the military feel? Will he feel depreciated, or maybe aggression as an ordinary person?
This story could be left. However, this case is one of the markers of the trend – the demarcation of Ukrainian society into groups. For those who participated directly in the war and those who did not participate.
Another demarcation – displaced persons and those who did not leave their homes forced. Those who left Ukraine and those who stayed here. Now our aggression is sublimated into hatred of the aggressor and the continuation of the war. When the war is over, internal aggression will not disappear. It will look for ways to implement and reset tension, which can be expressed both in personal relationships and in relationships between different social groups. For example, between civilian and former military.
Here is an example. In the United States, splashes of violent crimes were recorded in the 1860s and 1870s (during and after the Civil War), after the First World War, after the Second World War and during the Vietnam War. According to Melvin, the American cultural anthropologist and researcher, one of the consequences of US participation in the wars is a high level of aggression that finds a way out in shooting that occurs periodically among the civilians. After all, during hostilities, society not only undergoes stress, which can be sublimated into aggressive actions, but also in it there is a certain socialization of boys to potential involvement in violent conflicts. The population feels vulnerable and perceives the world as dangerous. Therefore, it is necessary to build appropriate survival strategies.
Similar consequences have also been observed in Colombia, which has experienced an internal armed conflict since 1964. In Rwanda. In Bosnia and Herzegovina. Research against the background of Israeli-Palestinian conflict confirms that when the violence is repeated, people become indifferent to violence. Experience less concern with every new influence. This, in turn, makes people more tolerant of violence and more cruel.
Will such trends on democracy and political preferences affect? Yes. If we, as a society, do not realize what is happening to us, we will look for leaders who will be able to embody our internal aggression, which stand as shame, and a sense of injustice, disappointment or just anger. This breaks our society into non -obvious groups of voters. For example, those who feel shame because they did not participate in the war will not support those who will talk about the war. Those who are disappointed will seek to take revenge and choose more radical slogans and extreme right political forces. Such segmentation for the post -war country will be another challenge. And the desire to realize our own aggression will push us to choose aggressive leaders, who are rarely the embodiment of democratic virtues. It also has consequences in the form of a decrease in the trust in the government, discrimination against non -party people, support of conspiracy theories and political populism. Support protests and more. In the end, this threatens that radical authoritarian policies and political forces will gain popularity among the population. In addition, this situation can become a driver of fragmentation of society, which is a dangerous scenario for the social situation in the country as a whole. Because instead of unity there is a split.
Everything is clear. What to do?
Here it would be possible to summarize: aggression is able to become creative, not only destructive, if we, as a society, will work with it, and secondly, we will sublip it in the realization of a common future. But as the experience of other countries demonstrates, more effort must be made here.
Although we have been living in a full -scale war for more than three years, we have not yet formed an adequate culture of the country that existed in such realities. For the most part, the population does not understand what PTSD or combat injury is, and what factors can provoke this condition; How to deal with people who are at risk. Does not want to learn to understand what the military can feel by returning to a peaceful life, and how we need to build our relationship. After the war, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will return home, who now protect our lives in the war. Such ignorance will give rise to conflicts, aggression, danger in intra -group social relations. We have changed during the war. But still do not understand how To cope with these changes in us. The answer to this question should be given both the state in the form of a certain ideology and norms, as well as the Ukrainian elite.
It is known that for the gradual exit from the traumatic state it is important the presence of the so -called point B. This is the point of meanings to which we move in the future. This rule is as important for society. What is the purpose of our future except the end of the war? How do we live then? Who are we in that future? Such meanings should be broadcast by the elite, but this is almost not in public discourse.
I will also add that in many countries that survived wars or military conflicts, special programs of public well -being have been introduced to teach the population self -regulation skills. For example, after the war, the Balkans created psycho-educational programs that covered classes in cognitive-behavioral therapy and teaching self-control methods. In the US, the Cure Violence program is being implemented, which teaches “breaker” violence – people who are able to interfere with conflicts and prevent violence, which contributed to the reduction of shooting.
In the end, at least we start talking about this problem in society. After all, while we are silent, it seems to be gone. But she is.
A column is a material that reflects the author’s point of view. The text of the column does not claim the objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic that rises in it. The editorial board of “Ukrainian Truth” is not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and plays only the role of the carrier. The point of view of the UP editorial board may not coincide with the point of view of the author of the column.