Can we express grief? Or at least empathy? Each new tragedy that emotionally affects the entire society makes us think about the peculiarities of Russian mourning. Explanations of the psychotherapist Ekaterina Mikhailova.
On March 25, a fire broke out in the Kemerovo shopping center «Winter Cherry». The exact number of dead has not yet been announced, but it is already known that among the victims of the fire there are many children whom their parents brought to the cinema to watch the cartoon. This terrible event will forever remain in our memory, but now it’s not about “who is to blame” and “who will not be punished again.” It’s about the human reaction to grief, obvious and undeniable to all.
Someone spends days reposting horrifying details on social networks, unverified calls for fundraising and just sad posts with discussions about what happened. Someone snaps that this is speculation on the mountain. Someone is unhappy that he is being condemned for funny photos from a recent holiday, and does not consider it necessary and appropriate to express sympathy to unfamiliar victims.
Where does such a range of opinions and reactions come from in relation to the event, which would seem obvious in its tragic nature? We asked the psychologist and psychotherapist Ekaterina Mikhailova to share her opinion on this matter.
One gets the feeling that in our country there is simply no culture, no tradition of national mourning. Is it so?
Ekaterina Mikhailova: Mourning as a cultural institution is an opportunity to join in sincere deep grief: even for those for whom it is just a matter of keeping up appearances. This is an agreement, an unwritten contract: the process of experiencing grief needs respect, recognition, silence from the society; there must also be hope that when the hour of your trials comes, your grief will likewise be surrounded by respectful silence. But it is precisely with agreements and consent that everything is very bad with us.
The Duma, which at one time refused to honor Gaidar’s death with a minute of silence, is a symptom. I’m not judging, I’m just trying to understand — what is it about? And today I simply cannot imagine who a terrible tragedy should happen to, so that this death does not divide us, but makes us forget about everything that separates us — and bow our heads, paying tribute.
Any tragedy in our country turns into a settling of scores — remember what kind of anger spilled out «on the margins» of the murder of Nemtsov. And all this once again makes us think about what the American psychologist of Turkish origin Vamik Volkan called «complicated mourning.» Our culture, in its experience of the endless traumas of the XNUMXth century, seems to be really «stuck» in one of the phases of mourning — the phase of anger. And endlessly looking for the wrong — or those whose death does not concern us personally.
When life turns us to face the terrible, one of the typical psychological defenses is “it’s not real, it doesn’t happen”
An old proverb recalls: «Before Kostlyava, everyone is equal.» But it seems that our society, divided into small groups, endlessly opposing friends and foes, is not ready to accept precisely this equality. Accept that any of us or our loved ones could be in the place of the dead. Because to accept this means to admit that “ours” and “not ours” are equally vulnerable, imperfect, unique, loved by their mothers. And are mortal.
Why, in your opinion, the leaders of the country once again did not consider it necessary to publicly express their condolences on the occasion of the tragedy?
I can’t judge the reasons of the first persons at all. There is much we do not know about them, and we will never know—or for a very long time. But I can say one thing: the behavior of “figures of power and authority” is a role model, regardless of their personal qualities, the situation, in general, everything. If the first persons are silent and behave as if nothing had happened, this is a clear signal: it is possible and even necessary to behave in this way.
Well, then it is not surprising that the rest, «not the first persons» translate this message in their own way — and behave in their own way: as if nothing had happened. However, the trouble is that angry comments about the silence of the first persons are also a symptom of getting stuck in the phase of anger, also a settling of scores. Tragedy as a reason to once again disengage and expose the enemy is not so new. Remember how often it happens when a scandal breaks out at a wake — or is miraculously extinguished — a scandal, an open confrontation: with accusations of insensitivity, of course.
What can you say about the controversial reaction to the tragedy in social networks?
The attitude towards death is part of the attitude towards life. There is a proverb “If you didn’t know how to live, you won’t learn how to die.” Exactly like this — desperately, ridiculously, devaluing and talking, blaming and bathing in a comforting sense of their own rightness, and most importantly, believing that all this is not entirely real and will be forgotten in a day or two — people manage in virtual reality with anything.
If you remember, on September 11, 2001, many simply did not believe at first that THIS could actually happen: TV reports from the scene of the tragedy seemed like frames from some apocalyptic movie. When life turns us to face the terrible, one of the typical psychological defenses is «it’s not real, it doesn’t happen.» In social networks, everything is “not really” to some extent, no matter how important they are in the lives of many.
The simple and monstrous in its simplicity the idea that you can cease to exist at any moment and it does not depend on you in any way is too terrible to be accepted calmly. And the backlash on social media is just an attempt to deal with it.