At the national level, this probably is a result of an “offended child”
At the “Heritage” party session, last week, Raffi Hovhannisyan, among many right and wrong estimations, and the just and the unjust complaints about the past, made one judgment, with which I fully agree. “We simply are not ready for a victory. We are not ready to provide this victory, there is no shame in it because a month ago, no one was thinking of the victory. They were saying, we are leaving, we are unable. But the Armenian people did and showed that it can secure a victory. And this was a challenge not to be disappointed, but to be better prepared for it.” The point, as you understand, is about the elections. Indeed, since 1995, different government teams had rigged them, and after becoming an opposition or “non-government”, they were complaining of rigged elections, without accepting and even apologizing that they had done the same. However, the leader of the “Heritage” was truly speaking about pre-sentiment towards our, that is, the Armenians’ defeat. Approximately the same feature was mentioned by Vazgen Manukyan, when he was saying that we a kind of get tired even after victories and gradually lose the fruits of the victory. The psychologists call it the “loser’s psychology”, which is fairly easy to live. It is actually the emotional state of constantly living in conflict with outside world and people around you. It’s enough to accept the fatalistic ideas about the “end of the world” and the bitter fate, to say that it’s all the same, it’s impossible to change anything, to say that “it was better yesterday than today,” but anyway “we had fallen into this situation and we have to tolerate.” The loser does not like a smart man because he is smart, a good-looking one, because he looks good, men because they are men, women because they are women. In short, he does not like anyone. First of all, to themselves, and are regularly shouting, I’m bad, I’m sick, and no one needs me. Thus, there is nothing difficult to acquire loser’s psychology, because it is a lot easier to find a guilty for your misfortunes rather than to try doing something yourself. Now, try to disseminate the American psychologist Eric Berne’s and a number of other scientists’ ideas to Armenia’s today’s reality. What do people usually talk on the streets, in the families and at the friendly table? The estimations, as a rule, are provided from this loser’s perspective, and principally, the same sentiments dominate in social networks. The nation, which for centuries and especially 100 years ago has been hit, continues living under the influence of psychology of these strikes, by feeding and cherishing the “self-pity.” In early 1990s, there were signs that this psychology would overcome, but for various reasons it failed. Continuing Bern’s and his successors’ theory, I must note that according to them, the psychology of the defeated comes when we choose the socio-psychological roles of a “parent” or a “child”. The “parent”, accordingly, is the one who imposes taboos; its posture is composed of thousands of “nos” addressed to others: never do this way or that way. Moreover, the “parents” themselves often break the taboos announced by them. The core of the “parent’s” role is: “I’m good, you’re bad” stereotype, I’m good because I know how to deal in all situations of the life, and you’re bad because you ignore my prohibitions. Or, “we both are bad” because I cannot transfer my experience to you. In the role of a “child”, people either are implementing these instructions, or not, and, accordingly, are guided by the motto of “I’m bad, and you’re good,” or again, “we both are bad”. The “child” (note that it is a role and not an age, it’s about quite adult people) has an “iron alibi” why nothing turns out with him, “if I had no family, if I had a sponsor, if I had money, then …” Both, the “parent’s” and the “child’s” role can be the basis for the loser’s psychology. The only role that leads to the opposite result is the role of an “elder”, which is based on neither the “parent’s” “stereotypical” nor the “child’s” emotional concepts. The approaches of the “elder” are thoughtful and conscious. He does not want to eliminate the “parent” and the “child,” but sought to test to what extent the “experience” of the first one and the “feelings” of the second one are in conformity with the reality. The stance of the “elder” is as follows, “I’m good, and you’re good.” In my impression, we, Armenians, although are very old nation, but our stance often reminds us of the behavior of an offended child.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
