 | | | | | | | |||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
|  | |
Copyright 2002 Wilderness Peacemaking Collapse and Reintegration The sudden physical and emotional collapse experienced by a person who has passed through crisis can leave the person drained, exhausted, withdrawn, remorseful, apologetic, apprehensive, and confused. The person has just been through a frightening and traumatic experience. Remember, too, that being restrained, even painlessly, can be humiliating. Just as you must remember that the violence was not directed at you personally, you must reassure the person who has passed through crisis that any restraint was not intended personally. This can often be communicated by helping the person to rise, giving a pat on the shoulder, nodding, asking if the person is all right, or otherwise acknowledging the return to control. One way to judge the return to rationality is to ask the person to take a few deep breaths. The breathing helps the person to relax, and compliance with your suggestion shows that the person is getting back his or her self-control. There is without doubt a temptation to punish or humiliate a person who has threatened or challenged you,10 but ideas of punishment are, of course, alien to the peacemaking nature of the intervention. The goal at this stage is to reestablish communication and help the person process the crisis. This is where the peacemaking work really begins. There are a number of models for intervention at this stage, often given names such as defusing or debriefing (see, for example, Berman, Davis-Berman, & Gillen, 1998). Some of these models take a highly institutionalized view of appropriate postvention, which I believe is inapplicable to wilderness peacemaking. Such models assume there are two separate entities involved – the person who has passed through crisis, on the one hand, and staff on the other. The model ignores other stakeholders in the outcome – bystanders, witnesses, friends, family, significant others, the community. Such models emphasize hierarchy: there are the controllers and the controlled. The goal of the model is to change behavior or add coping skills, for both the person and the staff; it envisions no way of welcoming the person who has passed through crisis back into the group. What wilderness peacemaking should envision instead of this institutional model is some form of ceremonial reintegration, where the person who has passed through crisis is welcomed back into the group, praise is given to the gifts the person brings, and the person is allowed to express feelings of remorse or embarrassment, take responsibility for his or her actions, and apologize to anyone who was hurt or made afraid. Part of the healing process involves searching for ways to deal with the anger, pain, or guilt of everyone involved in an assaultive or violent incident. A wilderness council is an excellent format for this reintegration. The person who has passed through crisis can be provided a safe nonjudgmental environment to talk about what happened; the intervenor and bystanders can talk about the effect of the crisis on them – their own fears, concerns, and anger. The goal is never to shame or humiliate the person who has passed through crisis. The interest is not in retributive justice – revenge, punishment, control, determining who is right – but in sacred justice, the healing of relationships, bringing the group closer together, accepting the sacred gifts of every member. More symbolic means are available as well. There is a Cree teaching that lists seven ways of reconciliation – crying, yelling, talking, sweating, singing, dancing, and praying (Ross, 1996, p. 136). One of the best ways is a sweat lodge, which is easily built in the wilderness. Other ceremonial ways are available – symbolically placing fear and anger and resentment into sticks and burning them in a fire, or into rocks and tossing them in a river; offering gifts or food; praying or singing together. Notes 10 It is normative in our society to seek vengeance for a physical attack. Walter Wink, a Christian theologian, calls this the “myth of redemptive violence” (Wink, 1992). The redemptive violence myth, he says, is the belief that violence is a necessary and appropriate response and even healing for the victim. A peacemaker brought up in our society has seen thousands of hours of movies and television shows in which the schoolyard bully is finally beaten and humiliated by his victim, or the ruthless outlaw is shot dead by the gentle sheriff. The schoolyard victim and gentle sheriff are empowered by this response, and often given a sexual reward for their violence. The wilderness peacemaker may be sorely tempted to reenact this mythology. | ||
Back to the top
      
| ||
