Page 234 - Creating Spiritual and Psychological Resilience

Fundamentals of Working With (Re)traumatized Populations 203

Front Line and the Back Hills (Danieli, 2002), addressed the costs paid by
protectors and providers and the responsibilities of their organizations to
train and support them before, during, and after their missions. Exposure
to trauma has been shown to affect the interveners in multiple ways,
both directly (sharing the same environment with the victims) and indi-
rectly (listening to victims’ accounts of their experiences in the context of
attempting to help them or taking their testimonies). Thus, all those who
help victims on the front lines are at high risk for double exposure and
should receive specialized training to help the individuals they serve but
also in self-care.

Vulnerability and Resilience

The literature is in disagreement regarding the impact of prior trauma
on subsequent trauma for affected individuals. Two contrasting perspec-
tives exist. The first, the vulnerability perspective, holds that prior trauma
left permanent psychic damage that render survivors more vulnerable
when subsequently faced with extreme stress (see above). The second, the
resilience perspective (Harel, Kahana, & Kaliana, 1993; Helmreich, 1992;
Kaminer & Lavie, 1991; Leon et al., 1981; Shanan, 1989; Whiteman, 1993)
postulates that coping well with initial trauma will strengthen resistance to
the effects of future trauma (see, for example, findings by Keppel-Benson,
Ollendick, & Benson, 2002) about posttraumatic stress in children follow-
ing motor vehicle accidents). In other words, survivors of previous trauma
will manifest more resilience when faced with adversity. In a sense, people
who may succumb to the trauma’s effects can be contrasted with those
who do not. The latter may well be described as resilient or more resistant
to the negative effects of trauma. Both perspectives recognize individual
differences in response to trauma, that exposure to massive trauma may
overwhelm predisposition and previous experience, and that posttrauma
environmental factors play important roles in adaptation (see also Eberly
et al., 1991; Engdahl et al., 1993; Ursano, 1990). As I have argued, rather
than artificially dichotomize vulnerability versus resilience—both of
which coexist in each individual, depending on the particular dimensions
ruptured by the trauma—one must be cognizant of how both may be at
play in those with whom we work.
Similarly, while some of the literature on children of survivors reports
good adjustment (e.g., Leon et al., 1981), Solomon, Kotler, & Milkulincer,
(1988) demonstrated in them a special vulnerability to traumatic stress.