For this class we were given the opportunity to meet with an admirable clinical psychologist, Julia Oxenburg. Julie came to our class to discuss her involvement and interest with facilitating dialogue between parties in conflict. She told us about her experiences, what she has learned, and what she thinks can come in the future. Julie's research of open dialogue between conflicting groups opened my eyes to how emotions must be shared in order to make progress. As Julie mentioned, her work is geared around the idea that words promote healing. Through the dialogues that she has participated in, she thinks that by breaking the ice through facilitated and structured conversation, individuals can better understand where the other party is coming from, as well as where they themselves are at in regards to individual coping, healing, and growing.
Julie told us of her trip to Berlin, Germany, where she facilitated a dialogue between 15 participants. Of these participants, there were survivors of the Holocaust, second generation of both survivors and perpetrators, Hitler youth, 'resistors,' and even displaced persons. All of the participants had an extremely different story; however, their one major similarity was a personal connection to the Holocaust. Julie's discussion of this dialogue was very interesting because it demonstrated how despite extreme differences, she still found major commonalities between Germans and Jews participating in the discussion. She introduced the idea that the opportunity for a forum such as this brings up certain emotions that individuals were unaware that they even had… This is incredibly fascinating, especially with the subject matter, because one would expect for individuals effected so deeply by an event to understand all of his/her emotions, confusions, frustrations, etc. However, with this type of forum, Julie made it clear that each person involved was making his/her own realizations. There was a process referred to as "unblending,"or providing a space for self understanding. She said that with this forum in particular, but with others as well, participants usually leave the group with a greater sense of identity (no longer feeling like a victim) and loyalty (no longer associating pain with betrayal and survival).
I found the topic of forums and open communication between groups in conflict to be very engaging and rather fascinating. I have always personally felt that confronting a problem head on is usually the best way to get past it; obviously, depending on the specific situation, this approach may vary. However, with conflicts such as victims vs. perpetrators, or opposing religions or ethnicities (ie. Pakistani vs. Israeli), I feel that these types of facilitated forums have such incredible potential for the participants. Even in certain cases in America, such as gang conflict, or student and facility conflict, a straight-forward confrontation of feelings, emotions, and thoughts could generate healing, listening, understanding, and most of all communicating. I was curious about the lines that may sometimes be crossed during these forums. I can imagine that many of the attitudes conflict amongst the participants. I wonder what happens psychologically when these conflicting views are recognized during a forum. How do the participants react to opposing ideas and attitudes? Do the facilitators need to have certain training in order to recover the group from a major debate or argument? Do these types of arguments actually assist with the process of healing? Is it normal and/or expected for outbursts of rage, anger, resentment, sadness, etc. to occur during the dialogue?
After Julie met with us, we continued to watch the rest of the film titles "Hitler's Children." This was a wonderful film that really explored the attitudes and struggles that second and third generation of Holocaust perpetrators must confront regularly. The end of the film highlighted the fact that these "children" really struggle with finding a balance between loving their parents/grandparents and hating them. The film almost ended abruptly. I thought that it ended on a bit of an unsettling note, because it made it clear that these individuals will continue struggling with their identities and family history, yet these individuals will also always be overshadowed by the traumatic family history of the survivors and victims. I think that this film develops in incredible portrayal of these individuals, and what they must face everyday. I thought the film gave us a much different perspective, but one that we can also relate to the readings we have completed from the Berger & Berger text.
No comments:
Post a Comment