By: Leslie Fischman
2ND DRAFT AS OF 9/30/07 Chapter 3: [PART A] What do we know about VT? Who’s affected? While there are many studies focusing on the volunteers role and their experiences, there has been little focus on negative factors affecting volunteers’ level of commitment, and the long-term effects of repeated exposure to sexual assault victims and victims of trauma. Hellman & House’s (2006) findings indicate that volunteers “serving victims of sexual assault report a psychologically stressful environment and often experience vicarious reactions to the trauma of victims” (117). Recent studies have used the term “Vicarious Trauma . . . to describe counselors’ [emotional] reactions that are secondary to their exposure to clients’ [sharing their] experiences” (Trippany et al. 2004:31). Trippany et al. (2004) give a detailed description of symptoms of VT experienced by counselors and professionals who provide advocacy to sexual assault survivors, and how the experience of VT can lead to “profound changes in the core aspects of the therapist self” (31). However, there is very little if any sociological research that focuses on client-counselor relations and the counselor’s emotional reactions resulting from their interaction with sexual assault victims. More recently the term “vicarious trauma” has been used to address the secondary emotional reactions to trauma experienced by the counselor. Vicarious Trauma is more than just burnout or “psychological stress of working with difficult clients” (Figley1995 in Trippany et al 2004: 31), VT has been described “as a traumatic reaction to specific client-presented information . . . [that] occurs only among those who work specifically with trauma survivors,” (32) including rape crisis hotline counselors and professional therapists in the field. Brian E. Bride (2007) conducted a psychological researched based study on the “Prevalence of Secondary Traumatic Stress among Social Workers” assisting “survivors of childhood abuse, domestic violence, violent crime, disasters, and war and terrorism” (63). Figley (1999) in Bride (2007) defines Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS) “as the natural, consequent behaviors and emotions resulting from knowledge about a traumatizing event experienced by a significant other. It is the stress resulting from helping or wanting to help a traumatized or suffering person” (63). However Bride (2007) indicates that there are “no published studies that examine the prevalence of STS among social workers” (64). From a sociological perspective, counselor’s experiencing symptoms of STS can have a significant impact on their sense of self and their ability to help others, which Bride claims to be “an occupational hazard” (64) affecting “psychotherapist and mental health professionals, sexual assault counselors, and trauma therapist” (64) in the field. George S. Everly, Jr., Ph.D. and Jeffrey T. Mitchell, Ph.D. provide research on what they call “the debriefing controversy” and a shift in focus within crisis intervention research. Their study investigates the “effectiveness of crisis intervention” (211) and the “need to now focus upon ‘who’ does crisis intervention, to ‘whom’ and in ‘what specific situations’ (211) underlying “the foundation of the field of crisis intervention” (211). Reading this study made me curious to see how different levels of training, engagement, and educational backgrounds factored into one’s interpretation and perception of their experiences and themselves. Do paid professionals have a greater capacity to cope with feelings arising from interactions with clients who are sexual assault survivors, than 40 hour trained volunteers? And found that therapist in comparison to hotline counselors, overall seemed more prepared for their role and had more knowledge about what to expect from the clients and were more prepared for how to approach and/or help the client. The most difficult part of the hotline counselor’s role is the unexpected aspect of it, and what they have yet to learn through their academic, work, and life experiences. On a more positive note, how can reliving trauma and facing what we are most afraid of help empower ourselves, our emotional strength, and give us the courage to face the world and not feel threatened and/or powerless anymore? There are certain kinds of people drawn to this line of work, and in many ways helping others can help volunteers and victim advocates help themselves cope with life’s most trying and traumatic experiences. The purpose of training is not to teach counselor’s how to avoid the experience of pain altogether, but to be prepared for when it comes unexpectedly and have the skills and capacity to cope with feelings of discomfort when they arise. It is often through this process that counselor’s become better prepared to help others, by learning how to help themselves first, and by strengthening themselves emotionally for their role. CONFLUENCE AS SEEN IN VICARIOUS TRAUMA VICTIMS O’Leary in 1997 discussed the differences between confluence and empathy. She defined confluence as “the absence or disappearance of a sense of separateness where an emotional boundary is no longer seen to exist between two individuals,” which I believe is the point at which symptoms of vicarious traumatization have overcome an individuals sense of self and the emotional boundary between themselves and the client has become blurred. “Merging” is what O’Leary calls the “elimination of difference” which may similarly occur between counselor’s and the feelings the have resulting from interacting with the client (138). This merging of identity also occurs throughout the process of socializing individuals into becoming hotline counselor’s. In many ways organizations promote a sense of confluence among its members “as a demand for likeness (to another person/object) and an inability to tolerate difference (from that person/object). Confluent individuals agree not to disagree” (O’Leary1997:138). Counselor’s and therapist must be weary of how “work confluence” affects them and “the proportion of their time” dedicated to their role as well as the time spent outside of their counselor/therapist role in order to avoid becoming over consumed. Newcomers in proving their commitment to the organizational leaders are most susceptible to avoiding the symptoms of VT by “continu[ing] in this behavior even if they are overextended or suffer illness” (139). In some ways those who identify too closely with the survivors, either through their own personal experiences or years experience working on the line, may “see this confluence as unavoidable since their work is them and they are their work” (139). The pressure to maintain the confidentiality of their clients and their legal obligation to maintain that confidentiality puts an added strain on volunteers and therapists, by limiting their options for support and debriefing. This further enhances an individuals dependence on in-group social and emotional support. By raising awareness about VT, counselor’s and therapist will be less apprehensive about sharing those negative feelings about what they do with other group members. In order to prevent counselors from “los[ing] touch with their emotions . . . [when] they do not allow feelings which would conflict with others into awareness and will try to say what they anticipate would be most pleasing” (O’Leary 1997:140). Which explains why it would be most difficult for those struggling to perform their role to admit any feelings that would suggest any personal weaknesses they may have, and suggest that maybe this is not the right role for them in life. Which can be really hard for those people who want to help others to admit to themselves that they are not as good at helping others as they think they are, and that really the one they should be helping is themselves. O’Leary 1997 describes four characteristics of confluent individuals, which are . . . “a weak boundary between oneself and the world; absence of a sense of self involving denial of wishes and emotions; caretaking of others or objects and a sense of dependence on others or objects” (140). All of which O’Leary1997 argues explains why these individuals “may let other individuals hurt them repeatedly” (140). Many of the hotline counselors I interviewed expressed some form of “feel[ing] responsible for others to such an extent that is the other person is hurt, depressed or angry, they may feel guilty even if they had nothing to do with the onset of the problem and are unlikely to relax until the particular difficulty is resolved” (140). Which explains why its so difficult for counselor’s to separate themselves (emotionally) from the client after a call ends, because there is to some extent a lasting emotional impact on the counselor’s sense of self when they feel they could have or should have done more to help alleviate the client’s distress. Subsequently, O’Leary warns individuals of the potential for these symptoms to lead to the “experience of anxiety and confusion and may withdraw into personal and social isolation” as seen in counselor’s experiencing vicarious trauma and reason as to why they leave.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorLeslie A. Fischman Archives
March 2015
Categories |