Trauma Recovery Network - Traumatised By Peace?

Feedback from the TRN Seminar 27th April 2007

48 delegates attended the TRN roundtable discussion and debate on Chris Gilligan's critique of five assumptions in the theory and practice of conflict related trauma policy in NI, back in April.

In preparation for the debate TRN facilitated a process whereby three papers were produced as three separate responses to the Gilligan paper with varying critiques and alternative positions proposed.

Response papers were written by: Bríd Keenan, (Psychotherapist); Cathy Nelis, ( Cúnamh) and Geraldine Hamilton ( Belfast Trust Trauma Resource Centre).Bríd’s paper delivered an independent perspective from experienced psychotherapy and community based work .The other two papers consisted of organisational responses from a community and statutory perspective facilitated by discussions at separate workshop events, also facilitated by TRN.

Chris Gilligan in his critique challenged the conventional view on the growth of conflict-related trauma referrals and in so doing asked for responses from those working in the field to address the issues he raised and viewpoint expressed.

The five assumptions challenged in the Gilligan Paper are as follows: A dichotomous view of war and peace, an assumption that a traumatic event is the cause of traumatic symptoms, the growth of the ‘market’ in counselling referrals based on a patient-led demand, whether or not the treatment of trauma is necessary/worthwhile and the link between the growth of referrals and the end of conflict in NI.

Through support from TRN the response papers were produced and then presented at the Seminar to 48 delegates for further debate and discussion. It was generally recognised that the Gilligan paper has helped to widen discussion on the role of mental health support in the community and has offered an opportunity to reflect on and critically evaluate practice to date.

Inevitably the provocative critique evoked an emotive response from those working in the field as well as critical counter challenges to reasoning believed to be based on very questionable assumptions on therapy theory and practice.

The lively and sometimes emotive discussion which followed the presentations consisted of a detailed and thorough response from experienced practitioners and others working generally in the field of conflict related trauma.

On evaluation of the Seminar it was clear that the debate on this area has only begun and most delegates felt that further discussion and analysis is essential if a full understanding of trauma recovery is to be achieved.

If you would like to view the Chris Gilligan Report & Response papers please go to the Reports section on our website.