Since last writing I have been reflecting on the above, as it seems to me that it’s the ‘nature/nurture’ debate all over again. How can a person, born into a very disadvantaged life, often abusive and deeply traumatic recover, seemingly against all odds?. Maybe the resilient strands of hereditary nature can miss a generation or more than one, and the depth of trauma and deeply abusive experiences is really in the gene mix, a kind of ‘luck of the draw’ which , at the same time may point to the predominance of ‘nature versus nurture.
It’s interesting that, often people who are damaged by insidious disease and other psychological and physical traumas , as individuals may vary greatly in their ability to be resilient and recover,or at least rebuild a meaningful and purposeful life, and that such individuals as indicated above, do not necessarily meet the frameworks or academic understanding re responding to trauma, and providing supportive responses to encourage and foster a resilient stance within the individual.
Most of us ,in life, have either read about, or experienced trauma in ourselves and others, and have absorbed some ideas re seemingly positive criteria required for support needed to recover. It follows that the notion of ‘nature versus nurture’ is a useful framework for holding and forming a response to support resilience leading to recovery.
Such a framework allows for the formation of an informed approach to supporting someone in these roles pastoral, therapeutic, or befriending. Each of the aforementioned roles have a common purpose to come alongside the person, determining what they need and giving appropriate support.
Having spent much of my working life in training supervising, and practising in therapeutic and or pastoral, and self care work I would suggest that in regard to the courage required to work with their issues the manner in which one comes alongside is vital in allowing the individual person requiring support to build trust in you, this of course is true of all relationships from infancy and throughout life.
The difficulty is remembering when dealing with brokenness we are trying to reflect a loving and compassionate relationship with the other person which we hope will have a healing effect . An essential ingredient of this relationship is healthy and appropriate boundaries, for and within the relationship.
It is important to remember that whilst encouragement each to the other, is vital we always need to respect and understand the need for professional help, and sometimes the fact that medication is needed as well as supportive encouragement.
Confusion can arise in groups whilst they may mean well too many people are giving their view of encouragement and it all compounds, and even mirrors the traumatic experiences the person is struggling with, so it’s important to know if you are befriending and what that means, and what roles members of the group undertake.
However we roam and reflect on things that are complex and have incomplete answers I have found that there are some solid principles that support meaningful relationships with others, and in fact these are returning us to the basics. In reflecting on this I owe tributes to my friend Linda who often points out the need to acknowledge ‘rage’, and I have been considering this in recent days with renewed interest,
Some many of our approaches within helping organisations and befriending groups are ‘hushers’ my word. It is about calming everything down, and in so doing the rage goes into the background again and again. Now I want to emphasise that creating an environment for dealing with complex trauma is a specialised approach needing to be carried out professionally however whether specialised or not there are common features in any helping engagement.
Quality listening and holding is required, indeed if this is not provided it wont matter what else you do. I know that you may say, who do you think you are talking to? Recently I was reminded of the old film ‘Good will hunting’ made in the late 1990’s it portrays a relationship of a therapist [Robbie Williams]with a troubled young man who, nevertheless is a brilliant mathematician. The young man cannot conform to the usual therapeutic environment but Williams is able to eventually engage him, he hears, accepts, contains and reflects his rage. The young man rages and curses but Williams remains calm reflecting several times ‘It is not your fault’ the guy continues to rage but finally the holding, listening, and acceptance clicks the young man is heard.
If we attempt to come alongside someone without genuine engagement then our attempts can be patronising not loving and compassionate and not able to foster resilience.
In the aforementioned dialogue I made reference to resilience as a mystery and it remains so to some degree, but connections, each to the other need to be built on relationships where quality listening facilitates acceptance of the person’s story and allows an appropriate and genuine response.
STAND BESIDE ME I’M MYSTIFIED!
aoibheann thoughtful reflections 