This post is the third installment in a four-part series based on a 2023 qualitative study conducted by The Fund for Armenians Relief’s (FAR) Child Protection Center (CPC) to explore the psychological and social dynamics of forced displacement, using Armenia’s integration of over 115,000 displaced persons from Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) as a contemporary case study.
What Now?
What happens after the emergency tents come down, the triage support is completed, and the first wave of humanitarian response draws back from the spotlight? For displaced populations, the question “What now?” succinctly captures the difficult phase that often follows the meeting of basic short-term needs.
Long-term psychological recovery, which fosters resilience, depends not on restoring what was lost but on cultivating an environment that honors past memories while providing resources, tools, and opportunities for individuals to thrive.
Drawing on FAR Center for Child Protection’s qualitative research, we will explore how recovery unfolds across individual, relational, institutional, and cultural systems. Our goal is to help identify repeatable processes that clinicians working with displaced populations worldwide can implement.
Reframing Resilience as the Outcome that Matters
Our research employs qualitative methods rooted in lived experience, including focus groups with displaced Artsakh Armenians and host-community members, as well as 30 guided interviews across urban and rural Armenia. The distinguishing feature of this work is not methodological innovation, but the integration of sociological insight, cultural psychology, and clinical understanding as complementary approaches.
Reexamining these findings through Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems framework shifts the central question. Instead of asking whether individuals have “recovered” from the trauma of their displacement, this framework asks whether the conditions for resilience are being put into place at community-wide and systemic levels. Resilience, in this view, is not a personal trait or end state. It is a process sustained by environments, relationships, institutions, and cultural meaning. Success is measured not by the absence of distress, but by the presence of stability, agency, and continuity across these layers.
As displaced persons redefine sustainability, they increasingly prioritize the effectiveness and adequacy of support programs. This shift arises from the loss of personal resources and the gradual reconstruction of social networks. The misalignment between housing programs and actual needs not only delays adaptation and stabilization but also significantly contributes to secondary traumatization and deterioration.
Focus group findings indicate that displaced individuals often become trapped in a cycle of daily management challenges. Uncertainty regarding housing acquisition is closely linked to psychological well-being and other aspects of work-life functioning. Any oversight, error, or lack of responsiveness in support programs elicits heightened sensitivity. Small families, in particular, frequently report profound feelings of rejection and marginalization due to housing program eligibility criteria, regardless of the rationale for these decisions.
Restoring Coherence Before Resolution
At the individual level, resilience does not present itself as emotional closure or the resolution of grief. Among displaced Artsakh Armenians, the earliest signs of stability appear instead as a return of internal order—the ability to orient oneself within what feels understandable, manageable, and purposeful.
One participant described this shift plainly: “We arrived here with great difficulty, but we understood that the people and environment are very similar to Artsakh, so people will not leave this community for anywhere else, except Artsakh.”
This sentiment reflects what Antonovsky (1996) identified as a salutogenic orientation, in which psychological health is supported by “striving toward meaning and coherence for psychological well-being” rather than merely by the elimination of symptoms.
Resilience Essential Reads
Resilience at this stage is built by:
- Re-establishing daily routines
- Identifying familiar elements in unfamiliar surroundings
- Allowing grief to coexist with forward movement
This process enables individuals to find meaning and purpose in suffering, which, according to psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Victor Frankl, is essential for psychological resilience. Clinical approaches that hasten emotional resolution may undermine this process, especially when displacement entails permanent loss. Preserving selfhood is therefore the initial step toward resilience.
Repetition, Relationship, and Repair
Resilience strengthens through repeated interpersonal contact, not singular moments of acceptance. Our findings indicate that everyday interactions—especially among children—play a decisive role in rebuilding social trust.
“There are two children in my son’s class, they make such good friends,” one local parent observed. “At first, only the dialect was hindering; now they understand each other well.” These exchanges illustrate what Swedberg (2018)1 describes as “interaction rituals” that help us understand how new social connections are formed.
Here, resilience is built through:
- Consistent contact rather than forced integration
- Shared activities that normalize difference
- Children acting as cultural mediators within families
In this context, schools frequently serve as infrastructure for building resilience. They transform isolation into participation and unfamiliarity into routine. For clinicians, this underscores the importance of family- and systems-based perspectives, recognizing children as active contributors to adaptation rather than passive recipients of care.
Visibility as Institutional Trust
For displaced populations, trust in institutional fairness often determines whether resilience can develop. Interviews highlight that small, visible actions by local authorities, such as listening, follow-up, and presence, carry significant psychological weight.
One displaced resident noted that the community mayor regularly inquired about their challenges. Evans and Plyushteva’s (2016) concept of “civic institutionalism” emphasizes the role of local institutions in establishing social cohesion.
Resilience at the institutional level is built by:
- Public responsiveness
- Clear points of contact
- Demonstrated interest in lived realities
For individuals who have lost their homes and livelihoods, recognition and acknowledgment by institutions affirm their existence. Clinically, this sense of civic inclusion stabilizes mood and reduces the persistent hypervigilance associated with displacement-related trauma.
Focus groups in other communities, however, told a very different story. Participants reported varied experiences, emphasizing that in the immediate aftermath of displacement, they experienced more genuine attention and support from neighbors and ordinary people than from institutional sources.
Many are convinced that Artsakh was simply a bargaining chip for those currently in power, and that they themselves were used as political leverage rather than treated as human beings. This sense of betrayal shapes their view of institutional actors across the board, unless they experience personalized, authentic interest and care.
