[psych-hr] Selecting further topics for our discussion

[****Moderator's note: 

As I indicated in my introductory notes to the summaries of the IPEDEHP 
discussion to date which went out July 7, it is now time to move the 
discusion into a more interactive mode based on the rich input to date.

Over the next month I propose that two things happen to move the discussion 
in this direction: 

(1) That we begin exploring what we can get out of the IPEDEHP discussion 
thus far that has broader implications for a key objective of this discussion 
group which is to prepare for a broader audience a summary of the outcomes of 
the discusion of the International Peace Practitioners Network that could be 
used to inform policy and/or guide the design/implementation and evaluation 
of human rights programs in conflict and post conflict societies.

(2) That, as a group, we agree on a list of issues/topics that will serve as 
a basis for group discusion starting in September which could draw on our 
collective experiences and, in so doing, further contribute to the objectives 
of this discussion group.

An e-mail from Anne Anderson, which just went out, addresses item (1) above. 
In it, Anne gets the ball rolling by presenting some possible policy 
recommendations coming out of the review of the IPEDEHP case study. In her 
e-mail she asks for our comments/reactions to what she proposes. She also 
request that, as appropriate, we come up with other policy recommendations.

This e-mails addresses item (2) above. It lists six topics (four coming out 
of the IPEDEHP discussion, two not) in the hopes that between now and mid 
August, each member of the group can get back to me with her/his "vote" on 
which of these topics (and/or others) you would like our internet discussion 
to focus on starting in September. 

PLEASE exercise your right to vote and get back to me by mid August. Our 
future discussion will be far the stronger, and richer, if everyone in the 
group weighs in with her/his views on what the topics of this discussion 
should be.

A final comment. For the next while (both in responding to Anne's e-mail on 
policy recommendations and in voting on and addressing the discussion topics 
listed below) I will take on, in addition to my moderator's "hat", a "Marcy

Bernbaum, member of the discusion group hat". Please, therefore, be prepared 
to see me weighing in as just another member of the group. When I do so, you 
will see me operatng as "Marcy" and not as "Moderator".

Regards, Marcy***]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

A. TOPICS COMING OUT OF THE IPEDEHP DISCUSSION

1. INTEGRATING THE EXPRESSION OF THE AFFECTIVE, NURTURING TRUST NETWORKS: 

Many of those who reviewed the IPEDEHP case study agreed that two clear 
strengths of IPEDEHP's approach are its deliberate integration of the 
affective/feelings (and approaching the individual as an integral being who 
thinks, feels and acts) into everything it does and its deliberate effort to 
strengthen/build trust networks. Several of those who responded with 
comments on the IPEDEHP case study did a nice job of attempting to explain 
"why" this approach is so effective (it gives the trainees' voice and
treats 
them with respect; the training environment provided space for the naming and 
expression of what happened and to communalize grieving, loss and pain; the 
methodology stresses building hope and affirming one's experiences; through 
the training the personal situations of a number of participants were 
changed; the individual is transformed as he/she becomes aware that, as a 
bearer of rights, he/she can demand these rights and in so doing see 
him/herself as a valuable and capable person).

-- How do other members of the IPPN discussion group deal with the 
integration of the affective in what they do and what has been their 
experience?

-- What has been the experience of others in nurturing trust networks?

-- To what extent are there cross-cultural differences in the expression of 
the affective? (Rosa Maria Mujica claims that there are not differences, 
that where people come together, regardless of cultural background, is in 
their expression of pain. Others, such as Mike Wessells and Brinton Likes 
question this.) 

2. POLITICAL DANGERS OF ENCOURAGING ACTIVISTS TO GO BACK TO THEIR
COMMUNITIES TO PROMOTE AND DEFEND THEIR RIGHTS AND THOSE OF OTHERS

The IPPN discussion group seem to agree that promoting activism (e.g. helping 
people "do something" about their situation) is therapeutic and helps 
galvanize people into moving on with their lives (although some psychologists 
may question this approach). The concern, however, becomes, the political 
(and personal) dangers of doing this in a society that is still in or 
emerging from conflict.

The approach described by Rosa Maria Mujica (and described in more
detail in her e-mail dated June 16 entitled "Responses to questions on
IPEDEHP) calls for not working alone but taking steps to collaobrate
with other organizations (in this case the Human Rights Coordinator
and the Human Rights Ombudsman's office) who stand ready to step in
when human rights promotors or their families run into danger.

-- Is everyone in the discussion group in agreement that promoting activism, 
if done correctly, can be a useful part of the healing process for 
individuals who have directly or indirectly experienced the traumas of 
represion and/or terrorism?

-- Is the approach that IPEDEHP uses (e.g. linking closely with other 
organizations that can provide support when needed) applicable/realistic in 
other contexts?

It would be most interesting to hear from members of the group who have 
worked with/promoted activism to find out what their experiences have been.

3. EXTENT TO WHICH PROGAMS OF THIS NATURE ARE EFFECTIVE WITH WOMEN
WHEN THEY PARTICIPATE IN PROGRAMS WITH MEN.

Both Brinton Lykes and Joanie Connors, based on their experience in
Guatemala and Mexico, find IPEDEHP's experience and the impact
data--which is based on training in mixed gender groups--hard to
believe. I personally have no problems with mixed gender groups, at
least in the Peru context, from having attended the training. And
clearly Rosa Maria Mujica doesn't, given her answer to this question.

I suspect that a further exploration of this topic would raise a
lively discussion among group members as I know, from my contact with
people working in women's empowerment, that this is a controversial
topic.

What a group of psychologists with experience in the field would have to say 
on this topic might be very helpful in recommending to practitioners "how" 
one goes about trying to promote change/healing in a conflict-postconflict 
society.

4. CHALLENGES OF DEALING WITH GROUPS WITH LOW LITERACY LEVELS, NATIVE
LANGUAGE ISSUES, LOCATION

This topic was raised by both Joanie Connors and Brinton Lykes. In her
response Rosa Maria Mujica acknowledges that IPEDEHP has confronted
(and continues to confront) the same challenges. However, she offers
some practical approaches that seem to be working (writing documents
in a clear and easy to read fashion, minimizing the use of words to
deal with literacy issues; linking up with counterparts locally to
provide follow-up support to trainees once they return to their
communities).

-- It would be interesting to hear from Brinton, Joanie and others what they 
thought of Rosa Maria's response regarding how IPEDEHP has dealt with these 
challenges. 

-- It would also be interesting to hear from the rest of the group about 
your own experiences addressing these challenges (e.g. what has worked and 
what hasn't).

B. NOT FROM THE IPEDEHP DISCUSSION

1. CARING FOR THE CARETAKERS. 

I know from side communications with Elizabeth Lira, Matilde Ruderman, and 
Viviana ValsGen that this is clearly a key issue for psychologists working in 
the Southern Cone as psychologists are often not prepared for the 
psychological affect on themselves of the gruesome nature of the traumas that 
their patients bring to them. I suspect this topic is also of interest to 
folks elsewhere--how to help/protect the psychologists/psycho-analysts who, 
through the trauma they hear about daily, can also become victims of this 
trauma.

2. CHILDREN OF WAR.

In June 6 Judith Thompson sent an e-mail to the group with a
description of her Children of War experience. In it she raises a
number of questions that she is herself grappling with as a result of
the experience. Helping her address these questions might generate a
very interesting discussion. Among the questions she is grappling with
that may stimulate a very interesting discussion (and which I happen
to know that several of your are addressing/grappling with):

-- How does sharing stories in group settings which are specifically 
multi-cultural affect the healing process? 

-- While identity and knowledge are culturally formed (at least partially), 
are there other aspects/possibilities of identity and knowledge that are 
enhanced by multi-cultural/national experiences, and, if so, how do these 
transcultural or group culture-making experiences effect how we locate self?

-- In what ways is public testimony empowering and motivating in building a 
solidarity movement for justice? 

--What needs to happen for this to be truly empowering and not exhausting and 
re-traumatizing for the survivor? 

C. ACTION REQUESTED

Please get back to me at your earliest convenience (and by no later than 
mid-August) with your "vote" on which topics you would like the IPPN 
discussion group to take on this fall. In your vote you may:

1. List as many topics as you like (however, if you list more than 2 or 3 
please prioritize them).

2. Add new topics, not addressed above that you believe will be helpful in 
informing the key objective of our group.

In addition, feel free to change the way in which I have posed any of the 
topics/issues listed above.