Field report Strategies for Trauma Awareness and ... · Awareness and Resilience STAR invites communities and individuals to: a) address the impacts of traumagenic eventsandb) buildresilience,

Copyrig

Strategies forTrauma Awareness and Resilience programme: experiential education towards resilience and trauma

informed people and practice, Intervention 2017, Volume 15, Number 3, Page 264 - 277

Field report

Strategies for Trauma Awareness andResilience programme: experientialeducation towards resilience andtrauma informed people and practice

KathrynMans¢eld

War, genocide, gender based violence, structural

oppression and other forms of chronic violence and

social upheaval can reveal and cultivate tremendous

strength and resilience.They can also gravely harm

people in body, mind and spirit, both individually

and collectively.These harms can lead people to act

in on self and act out against others, entrapping us

in cycles of violence. Many strategies can assist in

breaking free from cycles of violence and building

resilience. Strategies for Trauma Awareness and

Resilience is one educational programme that o¡ers

a gateway for participants to: a) understand and

destigmatise potential impacts of traumagenic

events and b) develop life giving responses that meet

human needs rather than escalate violence. This

Field report details the programme’s origins, practi-

cal and theoretical foundations, pedagogical

approach and the components of a typical training,

as well as selected results, challenges and questions

for further research.

Keywords: resilience, trauma awareness,trauma informed peacebuilding

Introduction: backgroundPeacebuilding professionals typically workin the midst or aftermath of potentially trau-matic events (Bonanno,2005) or ‘traumagenic’circumstances (Anderson Hooker & PotterCzajkowski,2011), suchaswar, genocide, gen-der based violence, structural oppression orother forms of chronic violence and socialupheaval.1 Such events impact people bothindividually and collectively. One impactcan be the revelation and cultivation of

ht © War Trauma Foundation. Unautho

264

enormous personal and collective resilience,the ability to bounce back and resist andeven thrive in the face of potentially over-whelming circumstances (Zolli & Healy,2012; Taleb, 2012).Other trauma responses canbemore dimin-ishing and harmful. In response to poten-tially traumatic events, people can act inon self and/or act out against others, echoingthe adage that pain that is not transformedis transferred (Rohr, 2008). Resulting cyclesof violence can play out in individuals, fami-lies, organisations and communities for gen-erations, reinforcing oppressive structuresand systems, feeding toxic narratives andreifyingdestructive patterns in relationships.Strategies for breaking free from these cyclesof violence are as diverse as the potentialimpacts of traumagenic events.While deep technical expertise is helpful forunderstanding and responding to traumaand (re)building resilience, basic knowledgeand awareness can provide a substantialfoundation for communities and individuals,whether or not they hold such technicalexpertise.Education around natural, protective body/mind responses to traumagenic events beginsto de-stigmatise, rather than pathologise,trauma responses (Yoder, 2005). Explorationof the tapestry of chronic, continuous socialharms and one time sources of traumaresponses ^ and the needs that arise as aresult ^ can awaken awareness about why wecan’t ‘just get over it’. Examination of one’sown experience (and broader communal

rized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Copyrig

Mansfield

experiences) invites a grounded understand-ing of how protective body/mind responsescan transmute into forces for harm to selfand others, and initiate/maintain cycles ofviolence. Examples of individuals and com-munities who have broken free from cycles ofviolence illustrate possible pathways to build-ingresilienceandaddressingneeds.StrategiesforTraumaAwarenessandResilience(STAR)is an educational programme that includesthese elements.

Strategies forTraumaAwareness and ResilienceSTAR invites communities and individualsto: a) address the impacts of traumagenicevents and b) build resilience, creativity andcapacity to address human needs, includingthe needs for security, dignity and justice sooften at the heart of violent con£ict.

OriginsSTAR emerged in the aftermath of 11September 2001 in the USA. In the wake ofthe attacks, ChurchWorld Service provideda grant to Eastern Mennonite University’sCenter for Justice and Peacebuilding (CJP)to support community leaders dealingwith impacted communities. The CJP is


Promotingawareness &

Individcommu& sociwellbe

Transforming conflict

Building secure,sustainable communities

Figure 1: STAR integrated framework of founda

home to educational programmes thatprepare leaders to transform violence andinjustice, and not a provider of therapynor counselling services. Rather than pro-viding direct services for those who haveexperienced violence, the programme wascreated to educate community leadersabout trauma caused by collective violence.Fifteen years later, STAR has workedwith people from more than 60 countriesand conducted trainings in more than20 countries.

Practical and theoretical foundationsSTAR promotes a multilevel response totraumatic events by integrating informationabout how to simultaneously promote indi-vidual, community and societal wellbeingand resilience. STAR is not value neutral.The programme actively promotes know-ledge and encourages actions derived from¢ve prosocial responses to violence (pre-sented graphically in Figure 1):

� P

riz

tra res

uanit

etaing

tio

romoting trauma awareness and re-silience

� D
oing justice � M aking meaning � B uilding secure, sustainable communities � T ransforming con£ict
ed reproduction of this article is prohibited.

umailience

l,yl

Doing justice

Making meaning(spiritual/religious or secular)

nal ¢elds

265

Copyrig



The next section details more speci¢c de¢ni-tions and theoretical foundations for each
of these ¢ve areas.
Promoting trauma awareness andresilienceThe programme de¢nes trauma as ‘the emo-tional and physical harm resulting from violent con-

£ict, natural disasters or societal structures’(Strategies forTrauma Awareness and Resil-ience (STAR), 2017, p. 2), emphasising thattrauma occurs when our ability to respondto threat is overwhelmed (Levine,1997).STAR intentionally engages participants toexplore traumawithmultiple lenses, placingmore emphasis on the lived experience ofindividuals and groups ^ and the tremen-dous resources all people have for integra-tion, support and strength in the face of


Tr

Aggressor cycle(Acting out)

Mourning,grieving

Naming and/orconfronting fears;accepting loss

Memorialising

Reflecting on root causes;acknowledging the other’s story

Committingto take risks

Practicing toleranceand coexistence

Engagingthe offender(or society) Choosing

to forgive

Establishacknowledgin

exploringand 'crea

Acknow

ledgement

Reconnection

Begher

F

Figure 2: Breaking free from cycles of violence

266

trauma ^ than on technical de¢nitions andmedical response mechanisms.The programme’s foundations in traumaawareness emerged fromavarietyof sources,informed by the works of Herman (1992),Levine (1997; 2010),Van der Kolk (2014) andSiegel (2012a; 2012b), along with STARfounding director CarolynYoder’s Little BookofTrauma Healing (2005) and Hicks’ explora-tion of dignity (2013).Botcharova’s 1998 model is also foundationalto STAR’s approach to understanding resil-ience and options for responding to violence(Botcharova, 2001). Using Botcharova’s origi-nal model, the STAR team has developedand continues to re¢ne the ‘snail model’ dep-icted above ^ a model that spirals out fromtraumatic events and cycles of violence andincludes breaking free, acknowledgement


auma experience

Victim cycle(Acting in)

Transforming conflict;negotiating solutions;

constructing jointnarratives

Integrating traumainto new self and/or

group identity

Possibility ofreconciliation

ing justice;g responsibility; restitutiontive justice'

Breaking free

ine

inding safety and suppo

rt

^ building resilience: STAR’s ‘snail model’

Copyrig

Mansfield

and reconnection, as likely stops along thejourney to the possibility of reconciliation.

STAR team at Eastern Mennonite Uni-versity. Adapted from Botcharova (2001)STAR de¢nes resilience as ‘the capacity of indi-viduals and communities to adapt, survive and

bounce back in the midst of, or after, hardship and

adversity’ (STAR, 2017, p. 3). STAR searchesfor evidence of resilience, not in the absenceof traumatic response, but in the quality ofrelationships with self, other individuals,families and communities in the wake, ormidst, of traumagenic events.

Doing justiceSTAR draws heavily upon the teachings ofrestorative justice, which means focusing onrespect, responsibility and relationship;showing respect to all who were involved inharm, opening space for people to takeresponsibility for making things right andworking toward restoring relationshipswhere possible (Zehr, 2002).

Making meaning (spiritual/religiousor secular)Human beings are meaning makers; formany, making meaning is tied to religionor spirituality. STAR begins with theassumption that ‘spirituality, faith beliefs, iden-tity validation and the systems by which people give

meaning to their world are key to understanding

trauma responses and addressing the deep wounds

and torn social fabric created by the traumatic event’(STAR, 2017, p. 3).

Building secure, sustainablecommunitiesSTAR challenges the state based concept ofsecurity that focuses on: a) a narrownational security shaped agenda thatinvolves government protection of citizens,often through military means (STAR, 2017),or b) economic development models thatprivilege limitless consumption withoutattending to holistic human development.STAR trainings explore how individuals,


structures and systems can facilitate humandevelopment while honouring and sustain-ing community resources, drawing uponMax-Neef ’s human scale development(1991) and Adams’ integrated theory aroundchronic violence, human development,social relations and the practice of citizen-ship (2017). Adams’ framework encouragesmoving ‘from a primarily top-down perspective

(the state-centred focus on security, criminality

and deviance) to also encompass a bottom-up per-

spective rooted both in how violence is lived by those

who experience it most directly (both as victims

and perpetrators) and in the multiple drivers that

reproduce it’ (Ibid, p. xvi).

Transforming con£ictAdams suggests moving ‘from the essentiallynegative and narrow goal of eliminating orreducing violence to the more fundamentalgoal of enabling vulnerable people andgroups to thrive as individuals, social beingsand citizens’ (Ibid, p.xxiii). Her frameworkdescribes con£ict transformation, whichseeks not to end con£ict, but to understandand harness con£ict as a catalyst for neededchange, and a spark for vision and life givingcreativity (Lederach, 2003).

Pedagogical approaches and cautionsSTAR is intended as an elicitive, participa-tory learning space in which 20^25 partici-pants co-create the container for thelearning journey with their experienceand insight.Trauma is a whole person experience. Tohonour that, STAR engages multiple learn-ing modalities, including popular educationapproaches (Boal, 2002; Freire, 2011), expres-sive arts methods (Eberhart & Atkins,2014; Knill, Levine, & Levine, 2005), ongo-ing dialogue in smaller and larger groups,circle processes (Boyes-Watson & Pranis,2014; Pranis, 2005) and mindfulness prac-tices. Interactive processes, play, deep listen-ing and embodied learning are integratedwith lectures, ¢lms, visual and printresources.


267

Copyrig



STAR aims to create and sustain a de-colonised, welcoming, inclusive environ-ment for all kinds of spiritual practice, whileacknowledging current and historical trau-mas intertwined with religion and spiritual-ity. This is often a di⁄cult balance tosustain. Structurally, the programme isworking to build a training pool inclusiveof diverse religious, linguistic, ethnic, age,gender and experiential backgrounds.STAR takes seriously the value of a safe andbrave learning environment. Facilitatorsare up front with participants that this is aneducational experience, rather than therapy,although it can be therapeutic.When train-ing in the USA, we typically have counsel-lors available, however, this is not alwayspossible. We take precautions in coordinat-ing participant invitations, being clear thatthis is not victim services nor trauma coun-selling, but rather awareness training andeducation for community leaders. Trainingoccurs in teams of at least two, so that if apar-ticipant needs extra attention or accompani-ment, one trainer can provide it. Wherepossible, locating local resources to turn toif someone needs additional attentionbeyond the training and clarifying that peo-ple have the option to pass/observe in talkingcircles or other activities. In this way, every-thing is kept at an invitational level.

Components of a typicaltrainingAtypical STARtraining takes place over thecourse of four to ¢ve consecutive days inone location. In a ¢ve-day training, partici-pants are invited on the journey outlinedbelow, although not every training will fol-low this exact arc.

Day 1. Orientation and beginning thejourneyThe ¢rst day includes playful attunementactivities, a programme overview, sharingof hopes and expectations, guideline setting,time to de¢ne trauma and resilience, an

ht © War Trauma Foundation. Unautho268

interactive review of sources and types oftraumaandartsbasedexplorationof partici-pants’ own life stories. Participants beginthe three-part journey with trauma andresilience, focusing on the common impactsof traumagenic events onbody, brain, beliefsand behaviour.2

Day 2. Impacts of trauma (continued)and cycles of violenceThis day includes a circle process invitingsharing with a symbol of trauma relevantto each participant’s life; emotional ¢rst aidDOs and DON’Ts and compassionate listen-ing practice. Participants continue on to thesecond segment of the journey, ‘UnhealedTrauma: Acting In and Acting Out.’

Day 3. Breaking free from cycles ofviolence and building resilienceOn the third day, participants explore ‘Break-ing Free from Cycles of Violence ^ Building Resil-

ience,’ which includes: cultivation of safety,support, leadership and choice, variousforms of acknowledgement, and reconnec-tion of relationships.Theyexplore the natureof, and challenges to, navigating peace,mercy, justice and truth (Lederach, 2014).

Day 4. Breaking free and buildingresilience (continued)Participants are invited to share their spirit-ual resources in a circle process. Theybecome acquainted with introductory the-ory and practical examples from restorativejustice and con£ict transformation, and usethe STAR model to map their experience.

Day 5. Resilience and self-careParticipants share symbols of hope in a circleprocess and revisit resilience, including per-sonal resilience, community/social resilienceand qualities of trauma informed, resilientorganisations (Hart, Lantz-Simmons &Nashat, n.d.). They explore compassionfatigue and compassion satisfaction, wellbe-ing assessment tools and self-care strategies.


Copyrig

Mansfield

A closer lookThe following section explores particularelements of the training:

� d

ht

Fig

e¢ning and identifying sources oftrauma;

� t
he three-part journey: (1) why we can’tjust ‘get over it’; (2) unhealed trauma: actingin and acting out; (3) breaking free andbuilding resilience); and
� s
elf-carepractices and resources forbuild-ing personal and community resilience.
De¢ning and identifying sources oftraumaAfter a group exercise involving controlledchaos,3 participants put words to trauma,acknowledging the English word’s originsin the Greek word for ‘wound.’Participants are then invited to unlearn whatthey may already ‘know’about trauma. Cau-tions are sounded about labelling people as‘traumatised’, using a posttraumatic stress dis-order (PTSD) diagnosis as the only measureof trauma (Yoder, 2005), as well as consider-ing events ‘traumagenic,’ to acknowledge that

© War Trauma Foundation. Unautho

Acute stress disorder

Post traumatic stressdisorder (PTSD)

Developmental trauma(complex trauma)

Personal trauma

Secondary orvicarioustrauma

Participatorytrauma

Dignityviolations

On-going/ cocumula

Single eve

ure 3: Sources and types of trauma

speci¢c events will impact people in diverseways. Taking substantial time to unpacksources and types of trauma is foundationalto any STAR training. With the term resil-ience on one side, and trauma on the other,we discuss potential sources of traumaresponse. This usually takes shape as a low-tech presentation, taping up a series of labelsthat look something like those found inFigure 3.Acknowledging PTSD as one form ofwound, we also name the limitations ofpathologising trauma and treating it asa purely medical situation. We move to awider naming of sources of traumaticresponse, from cultural, structural and his-torical harms that do ongoing collectivedamage, to dignity violations (Hicks, 2013),secondary or vicarious trauma (Figley,1995; Ludick & Figley, 2017) and participa-tion induced traumatic stress, which canemerge from participation in doing harmto others (MacNair, 2002). Because experi-ence of these harms ^ and the ways theyintersect to impact some lives more thanothers ^ is compounded by power andstatus disparities, we also discuss the


Structuraltrauma

Historicaltrauma

ntinuous/tive

nt

Culturaltrauma

Collective trauma

269

Copyrig



intersectionality of harms (Crenshaw, 1989;Collins & Bilge, 2016).These activities and conversations establishthe framework for naming our own experi-ences, the diversity of responses to varioustraumagenic events and patterns, and thecommon impacts of these events on bodies,brains, beliefs and behaviour.

On the journey: why we can’t just getover itFollowing personal exploration, we moveinto some of the lessons from neurosciencearound common responses to traumagenicevents, starting with the ¢ght, £ight andfreeze responses to threat, which humansshare with other animals (Levine, 1997,2010; van der Kolk, 2014). We also dig intomeaning making and unmet needs as keyreasons we can’t ‘just get over’ trauma experi-ences, drawing on Volkan’s chosen glories


Fantasiesof revenge,

need forjustice

Shoinjury,

den

Physiologicalchanges – fight

flight, freeze

Re-experiencingevents, intrusive

thoughts, avoidingreminders,

hypervigilance

Traumaticevent(s)

Figure 4: The trauma experience

270

and chosen traumas (2004) and Max-Neef ’sunderstanding of ways to meet needs (1991).The basic model of the trauma experience(outlined in Figure 4) is followed, acknow-ledging that beyond the pervasive experi-ence of some form of physiological change,responses to traumagenic events will varyindividually and culturally. These responsesare not presented as sequential or de¢nitive.

Part 2 of the journey: unhealed traumaand cycles of violenceAfter examining the protective, natural andpotentially life giving responsiveness of thebody and brain to threatening events, andthe potential impacts on beliefs and behav-iour, attention turns to e¡ects of traumaenergy that is not discharged from the body.Drawing on the wisdom of Richard Rohr,we emphasise the concept that pain that isnot transformed is transferred (2008).


Suppressionof grief and fears

– numbing,isolation

Anger,rage, spiritual

questions, lossof meaning

ck, fear,ial

Powerless,helplessfeelings

Survivor guilt,shame andhumiliation

Realisationof loss – panic,

anxiety

Copyrig

Mansfield

Participants unpack what they have wit-nessed/experienced in the realms of emotion,cognition, behaviour, physiology, spirit andsociety/relationships. The following modelis our current depiction of how the victimcycle of the trauma experience can £ow intoan aggressor cycle, creating new traumaexperiences.

Part 3 of the journey: breaking freefrom cycles of violence and buildingresilienceAfter a preliminary naming of the group’sown ideas and experiences of ways peoplecan interrupt the transmission of wounded-ness (O’Dea, 2012), strategies and examplesof how individuals and communities breakfree fromcycles of violence viathe‘snailmodel’are explored (Figure 2).Although a model seems to simplify andmake linear a path that is typically quitecomplicated andmessy, the fact that stationsalong the snail are not necessarily progres-sive nor step-by-step is emphasised. Individ-uals and communities may skip certainsteps, progress deeply in one area even ascycles of violence continue, or ¢nd they needto revisit certain areas. Each space on theintentionally broken line that escapes thecycles of violence is a potential entry pointfor building resilience.Each entry point represents a deep body oftheory and practice, drawing on traumaand resilience studies (including neurobiol-ogy), restorative justice, spirituality/mean-ing making, human security and con£icttransformation. Through ¢lm and storyand participants’ own observations, exam-ples unfold of how people engage inbreakingfree through healthy leadership, creation ofspaces and processes for building safety, sup-port and a wider range of choices, and useof body/mind tools for building resilience.Processes of acknowledgement are explored,such as: rituals, storytelling, memorials andacknowledging the story of the ‘other.’We examine pathways to reconnection enroute to the possibility (not the expectation)


of reconciliation. Justice needs are un-packed, such as safety, information, truthtelling, participatory power and choice,and acknowledgement and repair of harm.Once familiar with examples of practicesincluded in the snail model, participantsmap their own situations to the model, re-imagining how to respond to traumagenicevents in their communities.

Resilience and self-careSTAR’s discussion of resilience encom-passes individual and community resi-lience. In exploring community resilience,STAR leans heavily on Anderson andWallace’s Opting Out of War (2012), whichdocuments communities that resistedjoining mass violence in their midst. At thepersonal and organisational levels, trainersintroduce some simple and more technicalassessment tools and invite discussionabout being a trauma-informed organisa-tion (Hart, Lantz-Simmons & Nashat,n.d.). Participants are also invited toshare their own self-care strategies andspiritual resources throughout the course ofthe training.

ResultsEvaluations have been conducted on STARadaptations implemented by two localNGOs, Wozo in Haiti and SOYDEN(Somali Youth and Development Network)in Somalia. Within the USA, pre and posttraining surveys have been conducted bythe Minnesota Peacebuilding LeadershipInstitute and at STAR trainings at the East-ern Mennonite University. STAR is in theprocess of developing a long-term survey ofparticipants. Below are ¢ndings from Haitiand Somalia, selected participant storiesfrom the author’s experience in Kenya, andfurther results.

Example 1:Wozo, HaitiLedby fourHaitian sta¡, collaborators fromthe Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at


271

Copyright © War Trauma Foundation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Tra

um

ati

cev

ent(

s);

acts

of

vio

len

ce

Fan

tas

ies

of

reve

ng

e,n

eed

fo

rju

sti

ce

Deh

um

anis

ing

the

“oth

er”

Dev

elo

pin

gg

oo

d v

s. e

vil

nar

rati

ve

Exp

erie

nci

ng

un

me

t n

eed

sfo

r s

afe

ty a

nd

jus

tice

– s

ham

e,h

um

ilia

tio

n,

fear

Se

ein

gs

elf

/gro

up

as

vict

ims,

em

bra

cin

g“u

s” v

s. “

them

”id

enti

ty

Att

acki

ng

inth

e n

ame

of

se

lf-d

efen

se,

jus

tice

or

ho

no

r

Cre

ati

ng

an

dsu

sta

inin

g u

nju

st

str

uct

ure

an

dsy

ste

m

Res

po

nd

ing

to s

oci

al a

nd

cult

ura

lp

ress

ure

s,p

rid

e

Dec

idin

gto

pu

rsu

eo

wn

ne

eds,

eve

na

t ex

pen

se

of

oth

ers

Vie

win

gvi

ole

nce

as

red

emp

tive

Su

pp

ress

ion

of

gri

ef a

nd

fear

s

An

ger

, rag

esp

irit

ua

lq

ues

tio

ns,

loss

of

me

anin

g

Sh

ock

,in

jury

, fe

ar,

den

ial

Cyc

les

of

vio

len

ce

Ag

gre

sso

r cy

cle

(Act

ing

ou

t)V

icti

m c

ycle

(A

ctin

g in

)

Dep

ress

ion

Wo

rkah

oli

smS

uic

ide

Bu

llyi

ng

Bla

min

go

ther

s

Rep

eti

tive

con

flic

t

Ch

ild

abu

se

Cri

min

al

acti

vity

Do

mes

tic

vio

len

ce

Inte

rna

lis

edo

pp

ress

ion

Le

arn

edh

elp

less

nes

s,fa

tali

sm

Ph

ysic

al

ail

men

ts

Sil

ence

,co

ns

tric

ted

emo

tio

ns

Se

lf-a

bu

se,

add

icti

on

s,in

terg

ener

ati

on

al

trau

ma

Ph

ysio

log

ica

lch

ang

es –

fig

ht

flig

ht,

fre

eze

Po

wer

less

,h

elp

less

fee

lin

gs

Su

rviv

or

gu

ilt,

sham

e an

dh

um

ilia

tio

n

Re

ali

sa

tio

no

f lo

ss –

pan

ic,

anxi

ety

Re-

exp

erie

nci

ng

even

ts, i

ntr

us

ive

tho

ug

hts

, avo

idin

gre

min

der

s,h

yper

vig

ilan

ce

Figu

re5:

Cyclesof

violen

ce.



272

Copyrig

Mansfield

EMU and various donors, Wozo’s work isestimated to have touched approximately13,000 people. Everett M. Ressler of TheKonterra Group conducted the evaluation.The overall programmegoalwas to establisha contextualised, long-term trauma resil-ience programme towork with impacts fromthe 2010 earthquake, in addition to longer-reaching social traumas experienced byHaitians.Thisbeganwith training local train-ers, developing contextualised materialsand teaching approach and building net-works. From 2011 to 2013, Wozo conductedapproximately 36 STARLevel I workshops,with approximately 976 direct participants.According to the evaluation:

� p

ht

articipants described the programme as‘transformative’and‘lifechanging’andcarriedlearnings into their home, work and com-munity environments, citing change inmarriage relationships, treatment ofchildren and dispute resolution;

� t
rainings changed the way participantsview the di⁄cult circumstances (trau-mas) experienced in the course of life,howtheyunderstandand feelabout them-selves, how they see and treat others, andhow they deal with con£ict.
Example 2: Quraca Nabadda, Somalia4SOYDEN (Somali Youth and DevelopmentNetwork) translated and contextualised theVillage STAR curriculum for use in multipledistricts in Somalia, under the name QuracaNabadda (QN, Tree of Peace). In 2014, theyconducted an evaluation of a series of QNcommunity dialogues which were accompa-nied by a local radio programme (whosecreators had been involved in the QN train-ing of trainers and community dialogues).They conducted rapid pre and post partici-pation surveys of approximately 1,600 parti-cipants.Their research showed shifts in attitudes andorientation to forgiveness and reintegrationof combatants:

© War Trauma Foundation. Unautho

� t

riz

rust in neighbouring clans rose: a total of80% felt attitudes about their own clanschanged, and 79% felt attitudes aboutother clans hadchangedas a resultof theirparticipation;

� f
orgiveness: 91% of respondents said theywould forgiveotherswhocommittedtrau-matic events, and in a separate questionabout handlingperpetrators,12.7%statedthey should be arrested, 2.6% wantedthem killed, with the remaining 85.4%stating don’t know (up from the baselineby12%);
� r
eintegration: when asked whether themembers of armed groups should beallowed to return to their communities,the overwhelming majority agreed orstrongly agreed that they should, withonly12.5% disagreeing.
Example 3: two women in KenyaThese participant stories come from a train-ing the author co-facilitated with the lateDoreen Ruto in 2012 in Kenya.One participant appeared to be exhibitingsigns of emotional and physical distress atthe beginning of the training. She informedthe trainers of deeply wounding events shehad been through during mass violence inher home area. By the end of the week, shewas leading the group in song and dance,and laughing. During a visit with her sixmonths later, she informedus that at the timeof the training, she had been planningrevenge attacks and trading weapons. Shetold us, ‘now I am just helping other women. . .Iam so thankful. I have forgiven him, the one who

cut me with a panga. I greet him. I even bought

him a soda the other day!’Another participant, a small business owner,had been attacked in her home and wit-nessed the torture of a loved one. She sharedher stories, shaking, while we were together.When we visited with her six months later,she still seemed slightly shaken.Yet she said,‘I used to have ulcers. Sincewewere together I no lon-ger have pain in my stomach. Somehow drawing


273

Copyrig



those thingsand sharingthe stories. . . Ino longer feelthe ulcers.’Another of herbrothers hadbeen killed sinceour ¢rst meeting. She said that the men inthe family came together to raise money ‘tobuy a gun and revenge.’ She approached them.She suggested,‘Yes, let’s raise money, but let’s useit to pay the schoolfees for the children in ourextended

family, not to revenge.’ They listened to her.

Other impactsBeyond these examples, individuals andorganisations have developed STAR in newdirections. STAR Practitioner HeatherPeters conducted an organisation widetrauma audit for the Mennonite CentralCommittee in Canada, an internationalpeace, development and relief organisationthat is including STAR based training in itsleadership orientation, and with some of itspartner organisations. STAR’s curriculumhas inspired numerous adaptations for par-ticular contexts, communities or problems,including historical harms (AndersonHooker & Potter Czajkowski, 2011), return-ing from war (Prestwood-Taylor, updated2015), gender based violence (Family STAR,2011), and work with youth (original authorVesna Hart, 2007, updated 2012), as well asliteracy training (Medley, 2017). Condensedand visually oriented Village STAR (ZookBarge, updated annually) has served as abasis for many translations: Haitian Creole,Urdu, Arabic, Spanish, Somali (QuracaNabadda) and a variety of South Sudaneselanguages (Morning Star).

Challenges and questions forfurther researchAs STAR has unfolded from its origins,many questions and possibilities haveemerged. As more practitioners and trainersapply the elements of the STAR journey intheir lives and communities, we are chal-lenged (as a tiny organisation) to ensure thatindividuals receive ongoing support afterthe training. We have developed an online


274

learning community so that practitionersand trainers may continue learning togetherwith us.Since this work tends to raise as many ques-tions as it answers, this paper closes withkey questions for further research:

1. H

riz

owdowebestmeasure andunderstandthe immediate and long-term impacts ofthis experiential, educational pro-gramme?Howdowemeasure the impacton peacebuilding and development (andin justice, health care, community build-ing, religious and disaster response orga-nisations) of people doing their work inmoreholisticandtraumainformedways?

2. A
daptations of STARto various contextsand social challenges suggest this frame-work is bothwide enough to apply to dif-ferent manifestations of violence andparticular enoughto o¡er speci¢c, usefultools. What pieces remain consistentacross the transmission of STAR learn-ing? What are the unique adaptations,stories and tools that practitioners arebringing, and how can they be fed backinto the foundational training?
While many questions remain, STAR’s ¢rst15 years of providing an educational spacethat honours both profound resilienceamidst, and grave impacts of, traumagenicevents has demonstrated one possibleapproach to addressing trauma in the midstor aftermath of violent con£ict. Further,it is worth considering the statement, ‘longlasting peace cannot be built without work on

traumas that have been created through violent con-

£icts’ (Puljek-Shank & Puljek-Shank, 2008,p. 160). How would con£ict transformationwork shift, if it consistently incorporatedtrauma awareness and resilience buildingas foundations for addressing the political,social, economic and environmental chal-lenges that burn in the midst and aftermathof violence? STAR embodies an approachthat invites participants to do just this ^ workfor justice, build peace and meet human


Copyrig

Mansfield

needs, and to do so in a way that embracesthe complexity of the human spirit and de-stigmatises the common impacts of stressand trauma.

ReferencesAdams, T. M. (2017). How chronic violence a¡ects

human development, social relations, and the practice of

citizenship: A systemic framework for action.Washing-ton, DC: WoodrowWilson International Centerfor Scholars. Retrieved from https://www.wilson-center.org/sites/default/¢les/chronic_violence_¢nal_by_tani_adams.pdf.

Anderson, M. B., &Wallace, M. (2012). Opting outof war. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Anderson Hooker, D. & Potter Czajkowski, A.(2011).Transforming historical harms. Retrieved fromhttp://comingtothetable.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/01-Transforming_Historical_Harms.pdf.

Boal, A. (2002). Games for actors and non-actors

(2nd ed.). NewYork, NYand London: Routledge.

Bonanno, G. (2005). Resilience in the face ofpotential trauma. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 14(3),135-138.

Botcharova, O. (2001). Implementation of tracktwo diplomacy: Developing a model of forgive-ness. In: R. G. Helmick & R. L. Petersen (Eds.),Forgivenessandreconciliation (pp278^304). Philadel-phia, PA and London: Templeton FoundationPress.

Boyes-Watson, C., & Pranis, K. (2014). Circle for-ward. St Paul, MN: LivingJustice Press.

Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality.Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the inter-section of race and sex: Black feminist critique ofantidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory andantiracist politics.University of Chicago Legal Forum,140,139-167.

Eberhart, H., & Atkins, S. (2014). Presence and

process in expressive arts work: At the edge of wonder.


London/Philadelphia, PA: Jessica KingsleyPublishers.

Family STAR. (2011). Available by contactingSTAR at www.emu.edu/cjp/star.

Figley, C. (1995). Compassion fatigue: Coping with

secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the

traumatized. NewYork, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

Freire, P. (2011). Pedagogy of the oppressed. NewYork,NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.(Original work published1970).

Hart, B., Lantz-Simmons,M.,&Nashat,D. (n.d.).Guidanceonwhatmakesa trauma-informedorganisation.Retrieved from https://emu.edu/cjp/star/train-ing/customized-presentations-and-workshops/.

Hart,V. (2007).Youth STAR.Availablebycontact-ing STAR at www.emu.edu/cjp/star.

Herman, J. (1992).Trauma and recovery. New York,NY: Basic Books.

Hicks, D. (2013). Dignity: Its essential role in resolving

con£ict. NewHaven and London, CT:YaleUniver-sity Press.

Knill, P., Levine, E. G., & Levine, S. K. (2005).Principles and practice of expressive arts therapy:Toward

a therapeutic aesthetics. London/Philadelphia, PA:Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Lederach, J. P. (2003). Little book of con£ict

transformation. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

Lederach, J. P. (2014). Reconcile: Con£ict transforma-tion for ordinary Christians. Harrisonburg, VA:Herald Press.

Levine, P. (1997).Waking the tiger ^ healing trauma.Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.

Levine, P. (2010). In an unspoken voice: How the body

releases trauma and restores goodness. Berkeley, CA:North Atlantic Books.

Ludick, M., & Figley, C. (2017).Toward a mecha-nism for secondary trauma induction and reduc-tion: reimagining a theory of secondarytraumatic stress.Traumatology, 23(1),112-123.


275

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/chronic_violence_final_by_tani_adams.pdf



http://comingtothetable.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/01-Transforming_Historical_Harms.pdf

http://comingtothetable.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/01-Transforming_Historical_Harms.pdf

http://www.emu.edu/cjp/star

https://emu.edu/cjp/star/training/customized-presentations-and-workshops/

https://emu.edu/cjp/star/training/customized-presentations-and-workshops/


Copyrig



MacNair, R. (2002). Perpetration-induced traumatic

stress: The psychological consequences of killing.Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood PublishingGroup.

Max-Neef, M. A. (1991). Human scale development:

Conception,applicationandfurtherre£ections.NewYork,NY:TheApex Press.

Medley, R. M. (2017). Resilience: Bouncing

back through English. Bloomington, IN: WestbowPress.

O’Dea, J. (2012). Cultivating peace. San Rafael, CA:Shift Books.

Pranis, K. (2005). Little book of circle processes. Inter-course, PA: Good Books.

Prestwood-Taylor, B. (2015). Journey home from war.Available by contacting STAR at www.emu.edu/cjp/star.

Puljek-Shank, A., & Puljek-Shank, R. (2008).Thecontribution of trauma healing to peacebuildingin Southeast Europe. In: B. Hart (Ed.), Peacebuild-ing in traumatized societies (155^183). Lanham,MD: University Press of America.

Rohr, R. (2008).Things hidden: Scripture as spiritual-

ity. Cincinnati, OH: FranciscanMedia.

Siegel, D. J. (2012a). The developing mind, second

edition: How relationships and the brain interact

to shape who we are. New York, NY: The GuilfordPress.

Siegel, D. J. (2012b). Pocket guide to interpersonal

neurobiology. NewYork, NY:WWNorton & Co.

Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience(STAR). (2017). Level I training manual. EasternMennonite University, Harrisonburg,VA.

Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile:Things that gain from

disorder. NewYork, NY: RandomHouse.

vanderKolk, B. (2014).Thebodykeeps the score:Brain,

mind and body in the healing of trauma. New York,NY: Penguin Books.


276

Volkan,V. (2004). Blind trust: Large groups and theirleaders in times of crisis and terror. Charlottesville,VA: Pitchstone Publishing.

Yoder, C. (2005). Little book of trauma healing. Inter-course, PA: Good Books.

Zehr, H. (2002). Little book of restorative justice. Inter-course, PA: Good Books.

Zolli, A., & Healy, A. M. (2012). Resilience:

Why things bounce back. New York, NY: Simon &Schuster.

1 ‘Traumagenic’ will be used hereafter to indicateevents that involve overwhelming threat, thatmay or may not result in a trauma response(dependingonpersonalandcommunity resilienceand other factors). STAR uses this word ratherthan ‘traumatic’ to acknowledge that not everyonewho experiences a traumatic event or traumaticsituations experiences traumatic stress.2 While STAR has for some time been using the

language of ‘body, brain, beliefs and behaviour,’ it is

worth mentioning that Nancy Good, one of the

teachers whose work was foundational to STAR

theory and pedagogy, now shares a framework of

‘the four Bs’ (which the author encountered in

Good’s keynote address in a 2016 conference,

Trauma, Memory and Healing in the Balkans

and Beyond). While Good has not yet written

about this formally, it seems important tomention

this is not STAR’s intellectual property, but an

alliterative organising frame that is emerging

frommultiple origins.3 The ‘chaos exercise’ involves tossing an object

around from one group member to another, and

the facilitator adds rules and distractions that make

the activity increasingly challenging and chaotic.

The intention of this exercise is both a) to help

participants connect with each other and loosen

up, and b) to spark a conversation about diverse

responses to chaos and crisis and complexity.4 Thanks toAngiYoderMaina for sharing results

from Quraca Nabadda.




Copyright © War Trauma Foundation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Kathryn Mans¢eld, MA, is an educator and the current Director of Strategies for Trauma

Awareness and Resilience at Eastern Mennonite University’s Center for Justice and Peacebuilding

in Harrisonburg,Virginia, USA. She is currently a PhD candidate in Expressive Arts and Con£ict

Transformation at the European Graduate School in Switzerland.

email: mans¢[email protected]

DOI:10.1097/WTF.0000000000000164

Mansfield

277

Documents

Field report Strategies for Trauma Awareness and ... · Awareness and Resilience STAR invites communities and individuals to: a) address the impacts of traumagenic eventsandb) buildresilience,