"REFUGEES AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA:

 PSYCHOSOCIAL PERSPECTIVES"

to read the Italian version click here 

The refugee phenomena do not fall within the usual realm of psychological theorising

and treatment. Therefore, it is understandable that psychologists attempt to

comprehend these phenomena by searching for some existing psychological theories

that appear applicable to these novel situations. Psychological trauma has emerged

as the most suitable perspective as it is the only one that privileges the external

realities. The psychiatric category of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is the

only such category that is based on the presence of an external event.

So what is trauma? Trauma is a medical term and it refers to an injury or wound. In

Greek, trauma means wound, injury, and it comes from the verb titrosko – to pierce.

Thus, the original meaning of trauma is the mark, the injury that is left as a result of

the skin being pierced. Recent investigations into the etymology of the word trauma

(Papadopoulos 2000; 2001; 2002) revealed interesting new perspectives which show

that titrosko comes from the verb teiro which means ‘to rub’ and had, in ancient Greek,

two connotations: to rub in; and to rub off, to rub away. Therefore, trauma is the mark

left on persons as a result of something being rubbed onto them. Then, in so far as the

rubbing is of two kinds, we could have two different outcomes: from ‘rubbing in’ an

injury or a wound; and from ‘rubbing off’ or ‘rubbing away’, as in cleaning a surface

where there were marks previously (like when we use an eraser to remove writing on

a piece of paper). With reference to refugees, persons may be either injured

(psychologically) to varying degrees of severity as a result of being exposed to violent

events (‘rubbed in’), or alternatively, they may experience (in addition to the distress) a

sense of renewal, rejuvenation and revitalisation when the powerful and potentially

injurious experiences erase previous values, routines and life styles and introduce

new meaning to their lives. This second outcome of rubbing is not a linguistic invention

or a theoretical abstraction but it corresponds to the reality when people, following a

painful (‘traumatic’) event, are shaken and gradually become aware that they now look

at themselves and the world in a different way, for example by appreciating life,

friendship and warmth more than the pursuit of petty and meaningless quests.

With reference to the trauma approach to refugees, these two meanings of trauma

have important consequences. The first meaning of trauma (rubbing in and resulting in

injury) is by far the more dominant one. We consider the persons who become

refugees as being traumatised and in need of help. This, of course, may be true;

however, if we are not careful, this very reasonable approach can have some fairly

negative consequences. The second meaning of trauma (rubbing off, rubbing away,

resulting in the acquisition of new perspectives on life) is less noticeable although not

less known. It is well known that following a difficult and intense experience, people

may respond in ways that emphasise the renewing rather than the injurious effects of

the experience. Despite (or even because of) the pain, disorientation, disruption,

devastation and loss, people may still feel that the very same 'traumatic' experience

also made them re-evaluate their priorities in life, change their life styles and acquire

new values – all in all, experiencing a substantial change and renewal in their lives.

Having come so close to death or having experienced the unbearable anguish of

substantial losses, people often emerge transformed, re-viewing life, themselves and

their relationships in a new and revitalised way. This means that, paradoxically,

despite their negative nature, devastating experiences (regardless of the degree of

their harshness and destructive impact) may also help people reshuffle their lives and

imbue them with new meaning.

Logically, the range of possible effects from trauma must fall into three categories:

negative, positive and neutral. At the outset it must be emphasised that they do not

need to be exclusive. This means that despite the fact that a person is traumatised, he

or she may also gain from the experience. Psychologically speaking, based on the

psychological rather than social, ethical or other reality, reactions to adversity and the

devastating consequences of having to go into exile can vary enormously from

individual to individual depending on a variety of different variables. These include the

following:

 -  Personal: history, psychological characteristics, coping mechanisms,

strengths/weaknesses, status, education

 - Relational – supporting systems (‘social capital’): family (nuclear and

extended), community (local as well as wider, international)

 - Gender

 - Power position: degrees of helplessness and humiliation

 - Circumstances of the actual devastating events: predictability, isolation,

duration, lasting effects

 - Meaning given to the events and the experience of these events: political,

religious, ideological

 - Hope or the lack of hope

Each one of these factors can influence the way that each individual responds to the

experiences and events that have led them into exile.

Overall, we can distinguish the following three broad categories of possible effects that

trauma can have on a person: negative, positive and neutral as it is explained below.

REFERENCES

Affleck, G and Tennen H (1996) ‘Construing benefits from adversity: Adaptational significance and dispositional underpinnings’, Journal of Personality, 64, 4, 899–922.

Cicchetti, D and Luthar, SS (2003) Resilience and Vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, A and Clarke, A (2003) Human Resilience: A fifty year quest. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Daniel, B and Wassell, S (2002) Assessing and Promoting Resilience in Vulnerable Children. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Folkman, S (1997) ‘Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress’, Social Science and Medicine, 45, 1207–21.

Frankl, V (1959) Man's Search for Meaning. New York: Washington Square Press.

Glantz, MD and Johnson, JL (1999) Resilience and Development: Positive life adaptations. New York: Plenum.

Greene, R (2002) Resiliency: An integrated approach to practice, policy, and research. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Haggerty, RJ and others (eds) (1997) Stress, Risk, and Resilience in Children and Adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interventions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Harvey, M (1996). ‘An ecological view of psychological trauma and trauma recovery’, Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 3–23.

IOM (International Organisation for Migration) (2003) Position Paper on Psychosocial and Mental Well-Being of Migrants. Geneva: IOM.

Janoff-Bulman, R (1992) Shattered Assumptions: Toward a new psychology of trauma. New York: Free Press.

Lifton, RJ (1993) The Protean Self: Human resilience in an age of fragmentation. New York: Basic Books.

Losi, N (ed) (2000) Psychosocial and Trauma Response in War-torn Societies: The case of Kosovo. Geneva, I.O.M.

McCubbin, HI and others (1998a) A Sense of Coherence and Resiliency: Stress, coping and health in families. New York: Sage.

McCubbin, HI and others (1998b) Resiliency in African-American Families. New York: Sage.

McCubbin, HI and others (1998c) Resiliency in Native and Immigrant Families. New York: Sage.

McCubbin, HI and others (1999) The Dynamics of Resilient Families. Qualitative approaches. New York: Sage.

McMillen, JC and Fisher, RH (1998) ‘The perceived benefit scales: Measuring perceived positive life changes after negative events’, Social Work Research, 22, 3, 173–86.

McMillen, JC (1999) ‘Better for it: How people benefit from adversity’, Social Work, 44, 5, 455–68.

Papadopoulos, RK ‘A matter of shades: Trauma and psychosocial work in Kosovo’ in Losi, N (ed) (2000) Psychosocial and Trauma Response in War-Torn Societies: The case of Kosovo. Geneva: IOM.

Papadopoulos, RK (2001) ‘Refugees, therapists and trauma: Systemic reflections’, Context: The magazine of the Association for Family Therapy, 2001, No. 54, April, pp. 5-8. Special issue on Refugees; edited by G. Gorell Barnes and R. K. Papadopoulos.

Papadopoulos, RK (2002) Refugees, home and trauma. In Therapeutic Care for Refugees. No Place Like Home, edited by R. K. Papadopoulos. London: Karnac. Tavistock Clinic Series.

Papadopoulos, RK (2004) ‘Trauma in a systemic perspective: Theoretical, organisational and clinical dimensions’, Paper presented at the XIV Congress of the International Family Therapy Association in Istanbul.

Park, C, Cohen, LH and Murch, R (1996) ‘Assessment and prediction of stress-related growth’, Journal of Personality, 64, 71–105.

Saakvitne, KW, Tennen, H and Affleck, G (1998) ‘Exploring thriving in the context of clinical trauma theory: Constructivist self-development theory. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 2, 279.

Stinnett, N and DeFrain, J (1985) Secrets of strong families. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.

Tec, N (2003) Resilience and Courage: Women, and men, and the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Tedeschi, RG and Calhoun, LG (1995) Trauma and Transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. New York: Sage.

Tedeschi, RG, and Calhoun, LG (1996) The post-traumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455–71.

Tedeschi, RG, Park, C and Calhoun, LG (eds) (1998) Post-traumatic Growth: Theory and research in the aftermath of crisis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thompson, S (1985) ‘Finding positive meaning in a stressful event and coping’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 279–95.

Tizard, B and Varma, V (2000) Vulnerability and Resilience. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Walsh, F (1993) Normal Family Processes. (second edition). New York: Guilford Press.

Werner, EE and Smith, RS (1992) Overcoming the odds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Wolin, S and Wolin, S (1993) The resilient self. New York: Villiard Books.