| Coordinating
Committee for Conflict Resolution Training in Europe Number 2, Summer 1995 |
CCCRTE
|
| Reflections on
the Schlaining exchange meeting Diana Francis The overall content of our Schlaining meeting was a surprise to me, though it should not have been. It was very much focused on individual psychological impulses and needs. Social and political considerations were scarcely mentioned; strategy likewise. For instance, in our session on recovery and reconciliation, conversations remained in the interpersonal realm and most participants could not be coaxed into consideration of inter-group conflicts and needs. The immediate reason for this seemed to be that the inner pain that was released in this exercise needed a lot of time for processing. We had not allowed enough time for this to happen and for the wider questions to be considered. But I think what was true in this exercise is true more generally: that both because of the political and social upheaval which has followed the collapse of communism, and because of the misery of the war, the spiritual or emotional turmoil and hunger of people is immense. This inner pain requires attention and a degree of healing; people need some kind of psychological care and sustenance, if they are to go on functioning and finding ways to act creatively. They also need to make some kind of sense of what has happened and is happening in order to see what can be done. Their own individual experience is the most natural -- and arguably the most important -- place to start; and starting there fulfils an immediate personal need. Furthermore, whereas those working in the many peace groups of former Yugoslavia can have an impact at the community level, in most, if not all, cases their direct political leverage is virtually non-existent. They were concerned to be more effective in their dealings with those in authority whose permission they needed to carry on their activities. Here again, however, most participants were reluctant to concede that an official is not simply a human being to be reached out to, but also a function of a system, constrained and motivated by questions of status and power. Maybe recognising these wider pressures and frameworks is not really useful -- only disempowering; but maybe it would allow people to operate more strategically. One other consideration occurred to me. This was -- apart from two partcipants from former Yugoslavia and one outside trainer -- an all-female group. Given the strong macho culture in which these women are living and working, it seems possible that they react in a way by having a particular regard for the subjective and the psychological (and a high proportion of them are psychologists -- clearly a women's profession in the region). Those of us from outside did comment on the absence of substantial male participation at Schlaining, which reflected the composition of their groups at home. We asked how they would explain it but received no answer. I wonder whether the predominating style and interests of their membership both reflects and perpetuates this gender imbalance. (I realise that I could be seen as falling into some fairly crude stereotyping here, but feel that cultural factors have an inescapable influence which can, however, be modified if we are aware of them.) None of the outside trainers offered any real challenge to this very personal way of thinking. This was, perhaps, for some of us a reflection of our own personal skills and inclinations, but I think that we were also going with the flow; respecting expressed needs of our friends. It seems to me now that Schlaining was fulfilling the function of a psychological or spiritual 'health farm'. Participants had put burnout high on their list of things to be addressed, and I think that this time together was addressing not just the question but the fact of burnout. Nonetheless, I am left with some important questions. I feel that some of the training packages most favoured and represented at this exchange meeting are, if they stand alone, over-simple and inadequate in offering or encouraging a realistic and rounded response to conflict at the interpersonal level, let alone the social or the political. Some working assumptions For us as a Committee, this raises some important underlying questions about responsibility and judgement. It is another form of the question of who knows best, which regularly comes into debates about the role of a trainer. And it brings with it questions about who is an appropriate trainer. My own current working assumptions about the Committee and the kind of training it aims to provide are as follows:
|