The Connection /Reflection Groups
By Corky Becker and Roxana Llerena-Quinn
The reflection/connection groups met twice at AFTA this year to discuss the plenaries. There were ten groups with two facilitators assigned to each group, and random assignment of participants. The groups were fairly well attended. On Saturday, there were some new people who joined the AFTA Meeting for the special program on trauma.
Facilitators were presented with a format to draw on if they wished. A number of people used this format. It was based on the work of the Public Conversations Project. The protocol provided facilitators with guidelines to organize the groups. These guidelines suggested that they first begin by introducing themselves, their role, and suggest agreements (share air time, listen respectfully, pass if you are not ready to speak), then start the group with a go round including a brief introduction, and "one thing about yourself" (personal or professional), and "one thing you wish to say based on the plenary, i.e., something that stirred you, or something that you are thinking about and why it is important to you." Facilitators could then open up the conversation for discussion, prompting group members to "Respond to something you heard in the go-round and say what it brought up for you." The idea underlying this approach was to give everyone an opportunity to enter the dialogue, and allow time for responses from others. The suggested format ended with each person saying "something you are taking away from the conversations and something to close." Not everyone used the format. Some people asked participants to raise a question that came up during the plenary. Others invited an informal conversation.
What was valuable to the participants about the meeting? Most facilitators had the impression that people valued the experience. Facilitators reflected that people seemed deeply appreciative and respectful of each other as a by-product of creating a safe climate—to reflect on the conference and the larger world, and that people seemed willing to talk with depth and integrity, as if, in the context of New York, we owed it to others to speak from a place of risk and that maybe in that shared endeavor we could reach safety together. Facilitators also shared that the dialogue gave people the chance to engage in dialogue while discussing the nature and meaning of dialogue. One facilitator responded, "I think that the more often these groups meet, the more mutual empowerment and communication of respect increases, we change the atmosphere of the organization from a hierarchy." Another said, "We come from different contexts and we are at different stages in our careers. These influence what we notice or not. It was great getting a taste of how much we can learn from each other and how much others can take from us." Another facilitator expressed further enthusiasm, saying, "The newest idea for me was how divergent beliefs and ideas can be and still allow for dialogue."
Concerns and suggestions:
"Some people wish to address the plenary speakers directly."
"We should have a reflection/connection group meet for one hour every day of the conference."
"I don't think we need two facilitators."
"My concern is that we don't allow enough difference to emerge."
"The final group exercise should involve someone presenting a summary of the summaries, and then the collective reflection will be like a large bonfire in the middle of the collective group process."
Reactions to the plenary on Family Therapy and Clinical Consultations: Here and Abroad produced reflections on dialogue, voice, difference, hierarchy, marginalization, trauma, loss, anger, grief, healing, forgiveness, hope and action, challenged by the possibility of "unlikely joinings." How do we connect with the other? How do we engage difference? How can this be done when trust has been broken?" These and other questions were explored from local to global perspectives. For many, it was difficult to move into a discussion on dialogue without first addressing reactions to trauma and lack of safety. Moving on too quickly to what can be experienced as imposed solutions for dialogue, forgiveness, or reconciliation can silence grief and personal stories of trauma that need to be told without fear of being judged. Or else, such movement can risk missing the pain that hides behind the anger or silence.
Some participants were still holding on to their reactions to the Wednesday night plenary, which addressed stories of forgiveness, truth and reconciliation.
The second plenary was called Terror and Trauma: Enhancing Family and Community Resilience. People spoke movingly about visiting Ground Zero in New York for the first time. They compared experiences, in Israel and the United States, of living with terrorism as a reality. People talked about responding to the experience of 9/11 in diverse ways; some people felt pushed to talk about it when they didn't want to, some felt there were not enough opportunities to talk, some people elicited their client's responses, others noticed avoidance. Some people felt that their families and clients were not ready to talk until January. Visiting New York City fostered empathy for, and recognition of, what New Yorkers have been experiencing. The play helped us remember and think about other people whose lives were altered by loss, pain, and dislocation. Many people expressed the need for a forum for therapists to support each other in addressing trauma. Questions were raised about what has really changed after 9/11. "What has changed? Has racism changed? The dominant society says we are getting along, but the conditions of our African American lives didn't change."
There was a very strong reaction to the presentation about work being done in Africa. Some people felt physically ill and offended by the presentation. There was even a desire to walk out. People regretted that there was no forum to address the presenter directly at that time. The strong reactions stemmed from what was described as "the colonialism and missionary zeal" and "the lack of multiple perspectives" expressed in the presentation. Participants agreed that in our strong desire to help traumatized communities, no matter how unbearable the pain, it is important to lead with the assumption that all communities have strengths and resiliency. Perhaps, a vulnerability for helpers is that in our horror at the extent of others' pain there's a strong desire to provide "outsider" help. Witnessing this vulnerability may prevent us from seeing that these communities have resources. We must commit ourselves to taking a learner position, to listen to the voices in the community and learn what they know about what will work best for their community. We must build collaborations of mutual respect. People expressed appreciation of the other presentations and the ways they demonstrated approaches that were collaborative, in which outside consultants helped communities develop their own resources and knew when to leave, when they had done their part.
Like braided conversations, the themes of all the plenaries were interconnected. The awareness of trauma in all its forms, and the need for dialogue to understand what terror might mean to each of us, was present throughout the conference. We learned, that we tend to pathologize trauma, that all trauma does not result in PTSD, and that even, what is traumatic is different or has different meanings to different people. Locally, as in other places around the world, "knowing the geography, can be a matter of life and death." We live in geographies where there are fractures and fault lines. Some of these are visible, others are less known or not noticed. As we do what people need to do to cope and try to heal from pain and trauma, our reactions to trauma can open wounds for others. And the fault lines grow. But there are also "peace lines." Some of them are, perhaps, imposed, others tolerated, but most of them are much wished for, as we struggle to find ways to build them together. As we try to build these "peace lines," we are reminded that there is no easy road through dialogue, for all the voices are not always heard, able to speak, or equipped with the words to tell us. And if were, would they transform us? We need to learn more about how this can happen, about "having the courage to remain open to the influence of new ideas," or about how another's humanity can form the most unexpected and rewarding connections.
Unmet hopes. A subtext message emerged about our hopes for work still to be done as AFTA responds to a broader calling: a call to continue our work with what goes on within and between all families, but also within the larger communities in which our families live, at a time when the world has become smaller and its borders more permeable. There is a hope to continue unfinished conversations, going deeper into our differences, sharing braided conversations that bring about meaningful changes at the fault lines. There is hope that perhaps some day in a more just environment, differences will only fill the room with playful laughter.
Corky Becker, Ph.D. is on the faculty of the Family Institute of Cambridge. She is a consultant to the Project on Negotiation at the Harvard Law School, and associate of Public Conversations Project. She is a member of the Kosovar Family Professional Educational Collaborative. She has two daughters in college and lives on a small pond with very noisy frogs.
Roxana Llerena-Quinn, Ph.D. is a clinical instructor in the Department of Psychiatry at Children's Hospital in Boston, where she co-directs the Latino Program. She facilitates with others, a cultural self-awareness course for medical students at Harvard Medical School. She is involved in community initiatives for mentoring minority youth. She is the mother of an adolescent son and daughter.
