A psychological ynooei of rape for victim ank offender
3.2 A PSYCHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TRAUMA OF RAPE
3.2.1 STAGES OF RECOVERY FROM TRAUMA
Lewis Hermann (1992 : vi - vii, 155) describes the stages of "recovery" from trauma2- with rape being her paradigmatic example. She describes the following "stages" :
1 See Pettigrow (1998:61-90) for denial in its various modes with these juvenile offenders. We see in the verbatims especially, how the offenders lack guilt through varying forms of denial.
2 Cheston (1993:462- 477), on the other hand describes six "Stages of Healing". She does not describe them identically to Lewis Hermann but significantly she refers to the last stage as "Resolution and Reconciliation".
1.) "The healing relationships."
2) "Safety". This is the establishment of a physically secure environment, so that the victim can receive unhindered help.
3) "Remembrance and mourning".
4) "Reconnection" i.e. with other people in ordinary life.
5) "Commonality". Commonality here refers to sharing in the common moral values of humanity.
These are not necessarily, fixed, distinct stages but, in the course of successful recovery, it should be possible to have "Safety" and go "from dissociated trauma to acknowledged memory" and "from stigmatised isolation to restored social connection."
According to Lewis Hermann (1992:155), recovery is based upon the empowerment of the survivor and "The creation of new connections because the inverse had occurred in the time of the crime encounter" ie :- dis-empowerment and disconnection from others. She says,
"...Recovery can only take place within the context of relationships, it cannot occur in
isolation." By renewing one's connection to other people, the victim begins to build that which was destroyed in her rape viz :- trust and autonomy. The survivor must be allowed to dictate this process and initiate it. She says that a significant necessity for therapists (who would also be mediators for the purpose of this thesis ') would be that they help validate the survivor's experience rather than attempt to control the survivor.
She argues that while the therapist is technically neutral, "there should be a committed moral stance" (Lewis Herman 1992:135). She says, "[The therapist] must affirm a position of moral solidarity with the victim. This does not mean a simplistic notion that the victim can do no wrong either..." I think Lewis Hermann's comments here about the therapist, give us a glimpse of how the mediator should operate psychologically in victim- offender mediation and hence is useful in any spiritual- psychological model of reconciliation through mediation. Cheston (1993:477-478) agrees as well because she says that the relationship between the therapist and victim should be characterised by "believing in the survivor", developing trust and identifying and affirming the survivor's health.
11 proposed this argument in chapter 2.
Lewis Hermann (1992:136-140) also describes how "transference" occurs in the victim - therapist relationship. Since the victim's emotional make-up has been deformed by the
traumatic experience, she will have an affected relationship with her therapist. Lewis Hermann says, "For this reason traumatic transference reactions have an intense life- or- death quality unparalleled in ordinary therapeutic experience" (:136). It is necessary for me to make
comments on the relationship between victim and therapist, as I will argue in chapter four that the mediating role of Christ in 2 Corinthians 5:18 - 21 is analogous to the role that the therapist plays as mediator in the victim- offender relationship.
The therapist too, can be overwhelmed by the victim's emotional experience and "may begin to experience symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder too" (Lewis Hermann 1992:140).
Hearing the patient's trauma story is bound to revive any personal traumatic experiences that the therapist suffered in the past." Lewis Hermann refers to this as "counter- transference." I mention the issues of transference and counter transference to point out the dangers and difficulties for the mediator who must act as therapist when preparing the victim and offender for reconciliation.
The second stage of recovery Lewis Hermann (1992:175-181) calls "Remembrance and
mourning." Here the survivor "tells the story of trauma." This work of reconstruction actually transforms the traumatic memory, so that it can be integrated into the survivor's life story."
While normal memory is the "action of story- telling", traumatic memory is "wordless and static" (:175). "...The way is paved... for a reconciliation with the repressed material which is coming to expression in his symptoms ..." Note the idea here is for the victim to reconcile and integrate his traumatic memories into his whole life experience and see how " things of value"
can come out of this experience in the future. The need to be reconciled with oneself is vitally important then. In therapy Lewis Hermann says, "The recitation of facts without the
accompanying emotions is a sterile exercise, without therapeutic effect" (:177).
The survivor has two basic questions, "Why?" and "Why me?" (Lewis Hermann 1992:178).
The patient challenges the therapist to share her own struggles with these immense
philosophical questions." The victim also undergoes a revenge fantasy (:189). The victim hopes to undergo a catharsis by retaliating. The revenge fantasy has the same "grotesque, frozen and wordless quality as the traumatic memory itself." She says :
Though the traumatized person imagines that revenge will bring relief, repetitive revenge fantasies actually increases her
torment...[Feelings of revenge] are highly frustrating, since revenge can never change or compensate for the harm that was done. People that actually commit acts of revenge, such as combat victims..., do not succeed in getting rid of post- traumatic-
disorder. Rather, they seem to suffer the most severe and intractable disturbances.
(Lewis Hermann 1992:189)
One can infer then the psychological necessity for forgiveness. Lewis Hermann (1992:189) says,
"During the process of mourning, the survivor must come to terms with the impossibility of getting even." One can see the potential in reconciliation. Apart from extreme revenge fantasy, the victim may also have fantasies of forgiveness, so that they can "by- pass their outrage altogether". For her this is an "attempt at empowerment." She says, "Giving up the fantasy of revenge does not mean giving up the quest for justice; on the contrary, it begins the process of joining with others to hold the perpetrators accountable for their crimes."
For Lewis Hermann (1992:189) mourning is necessary for healing. But resistance to mourning can sometimes stagnate recovery. This resistance can take in the form of compensation,
forgiveness or revenge fantasies. Seeking compensation then, would just be a disguise to escape the mourning.
She goes on to say that healing of the victim "depends on the discovery of restorative love in her own life l; it does not require that this love be extended to the perpetrator" (Lewis Hermann (1992:190). I think the reason Lewis Hermann says this, is so that the initiative for healing can be taken away from the perpetrator because she feels that "genuine contrition in a perpetrator is a rare miracle" (:192). I find Lewis Hermann's statement a bit problematic, when she says, "...It does not require that this love be extended to the perpetrator"(:192). I would accept that
statement if it means that the perpetrator cannot be found or does not ask for forgiveness.
Otherwise, I think it is more a matter of "...it does not require that this love be accepted [italics mine] by the perpetrator"(:192). I commented on the subjectivity around such issues in chapter two, in the definitions of the key concepts of "forgiveness" and "reconciliation." I will
comment on this in chapter five where I further analyse the interviews.
1 See Thamm (1998:127). In this biography / have a life: Alison's journey, Alison (triumphantly) also mentions how she had to stop focussing on the perpetrators but rather focus on herself and her own recovery.
In the process of healing, the survivor, according to (Lewis Hermann 1990:190) eventually comes to a point when she will be surprised at "how uninteresting the perpetrator has become, once mourning is over...She may even feel compassion and sorrow for him." However we are warned that a "disengaged feeling" is not the same as forgiveness (:190). Coming back to the point of Compensation", she says it can be an impediment to mourning because of the "very legitimacy of the desire for compensation"(:190). Lewis Hermann argues that "prolonged fruitless struggles to wrest compensation from the perpetrator... may represent a defence against the full reality of what was lost. Mourning is the only way to give honour to loss ..."
"Paradoxically, the patient may liberate herself from the perpetrator when she renounces the hope of getting any compensation from him"(:190). Note Lewis Hermann is not against
compensation, per se at any point. However, if it becomes a fantasy - something that the victim is looking alone to for her recovery, then Lewis Hermann sees this as counter- productive. She says that "as grieving progresses, the patient comes to envision a more social, general and abstract process of restitution..."(: 190). I would say that this is necessary especially if the perpetrator is never to be found again after the rape.
Another critical fact of recovery is that the survivor "will never forget the trauma... But the time [will come] when the trauma no longer commands the central place in her life." (Lewis Hermann 1992:195). This is significant because it means that in forgiving we need not place the unrealistic demand on the survivor to forget. "Resolution of the trauma continues to reverberate throughout the survivor's life- cycle"(:211).
For Lewis Hermann (1992:196 -213), the third stage of recovery is a "re- connection" to others.
Having mourned the "old self she must now develop a "new self (:196). In re- connecting to others the survivor creates new relationships.
The fourth stage of recovery is referred to by Lewis Hermann (1992:214 -236) as
"Commonality." By creating new relationships, the survivor gains a "solidarity" with a group.
(:214) "Trauma isolates, the group re- creates a sense of belonging." This commonality arouses a sense of "common altruism." Things like faith, decency and courage that the victim believed to be irretrievably destroyed in the rape, are re - awakened in this common altruism.
Lewis Hermann (1992:218) mentions the value of "Groups for Safety" i.e.: the survivor joins a
group of other survivors that can validate her experience.1 The time for joining these groups can be a matter of weeks or months, after the trauma. In fact the Boston Area Rape Centre, advises survivors "to wait six months to a year before considering joining a group." I have mentioned this just to provide some idea of what it could take for involving survivors in reconciliation - whether it's groups of unrelated survivors meeting perpetrators or individuals meeting for reconciliation.