Redirected Aggression in Animals, Humans—and in Today’s Armenia
Many years ago, one of Armenia’s “local-level” oligarchs stormed into the newsroom of A1+, flanked by his bodyguards, angrily ranting—in barely coherent language—about something I had written. I tried, unsuccessfully, to figure out what exactly he was talking about and what he was so upset about. That only made him more agitated, until he reached the point where he started beating… his own bodyguard.
The Austrian psychologist Konrad Lorenz called this “redirected aggression”—when a person or an animal cannot direct their aggression at the real target and instead takes it out on someone safer. In this case, the oligarch clearly understood that hitting me could have consequences, whereas a bodyguard entirely dependent on him was hardly going to complain.
This kind of redirection helps avoid unwanted conflict and can sometimes relieve internal tension—what we casually call “blowing off steam.” One of Lorenz’s most telling examples is this: a dominant rooster intimidates a weaker one, but the weaker rooster does not dare strike back at the “boss” and instead attacks an even weaker bird—or even chicks. The hierarchy is preserved. It works much the same way in everyday life: your boss snaps at you, you go home, and you take it out on your family.
Read also
Later biologists, especially in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, acknowledged the existence of this mechanism but questioned its usefulness. In humans, at least, it often has the opposite effect: by habitually venting anger on weaker targets, people do not become less aggressive—they become more so.
Sigmund Freud, describing similar mechanisms of “displacement” (Verschiebung), argued that this is not just about releasing tension, but about reaching a compromise between desire and prohibition. Yes, it is a defense mechanism—but one that distorts reality, can lead to neuroses, and, crucially, does nothing to resolve the underlying conflict.
At the social and cultural level, this same mechanism was later explored by the French historian and philosopher René Girard. People tend to want the same things and compete for the same goods—a tendency only intensified by globalization and social media. The result is widespread tension. At some point, to defuse it, aggression is redirected toward a convenient target—a scapegoat: the weaker party, the outsider, the different, the suspect.
This is how societies end up hunting for the “guilty,” launching political campaigns against “enemies,” normalizing bullying, and fueling waves of collective hatred.
This is precisely the mechanism the current authorities rely on, constantly pointing to targets of hostility—“the former elites,” Russians, the clergy, “Karabakh Armenians.”
But redirected aggression in today’s Armenia does not stop there. Why are members of the Civil Contract party and other subordinates of Pashinyan so visibly aggressive? Because, I am convinced, they themselves are regularly humiliated by their “boss”—often in the form of hysterical outbursts. Can they push back? Of course not. Their mandates and positions matter more. So they “blow off steam” with angry posts aimed at the opposition and journalists.
And can Pashinyan say “no” to Aliyev’s latest humiliating demand? Of course not—the chair matters more. What he can do, however, is redirect that aggression toward the same familiar targets—and toward ordinary citizens who dare to disagree with him in public. For that, he has all the necessary tools at his disposal: loyal investigative bodies, the prosecutor’s office, the courts, the police, the National Security Service—and hundreds of bodyguards.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
“Aravot” daily
24.03.2026
