THE REFUGEE EXPERIENCE AND THEIR COPING STRATEGIES.

It is important to see the ‘refugee predicament’ in the context of national and international politics as well as from a humanitarian point of view. Moreover, individuals and families are forced into exile when they fear persecution. The roots of this fear are necessarily complex and may stem from one or a confused mix of circumstances often involving international intervention.

According to the Amnesty International, people fear persecution when, for example:

• the basic right to live their choose life is denied

• they and their family have been deprived of citizenship and/or the right to work and support themselves

• economic, religious or cultural practices are forbidden

• they are part of a victimized, political, religious, ethnic or racial minority

• the insecurity of economic and political upheaval or disruption becomes intolerable

• there is a real threat of extreme violence, as a result of war, civil unrest or victimization

Moreover, the 1951 United Nations Convention on refugees defines a refugee as

someone who leaves or remains outside his or her country ‘owing to a well-founded fear of having persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’.

Refugees have experienced the most complete dislocation of their social world and are deprived of power as social actors both in the country of origin and the country of reception (Joly, 1996). They have often suffered a severe defeat. This is sometimes compounded by events taking place during the journey from the home country to the reception society as they are depersonalized and organized by others (Harrell-Bond, 1996). The true picture of this experience has been vividly described by a Somali refugee in Kenya when he said ‘We left Somalia as Somalis, and arrived as refugees, as a UN statistic. In Somalia, we were defined by our family and clan responsibilities; here we are first refugees, then African and lastly Somalis’ (Farah, 2000). What is problematic is that the complex identities of a single person are taken and replaced by one: refugee, and in the process, refugees are stripped of the specific features of their society, their place of origin and history. The assumed identity of refugees creates and imposes an institutional dependency; to become a refugee is to accept the passive role of recipient (Griffiths, 1990). Thus, the experience of refugees cannot be grasped by others, because it entails a most dramatic confrontation with the arbitrariness of fate and the fleeting nature of life (Cindy, 1997) or as Habib (1996) described, being in a refugee situation means an annihilation of the substance of a world, a culture, a history and a livelihood.

Besides, owing to the dramatic changes in their lives, and under condition not of their choosing, they are compelled to employ coping strategies as forced migrants are active agents who, despite unfavourable conditions, will try to utilize the options open to them like anyone else (Jackson, 1987). Given their limited resources and predicament, coping is the best alternative that the individual can achieve resulting in varying degrees of individual and social adaptation. Berry (1989) has described adaptation as a generic term used to refer to both the process of dealing with acculturation and the outcome of acculturation. Thus, for the refugee, in order to adapt to the context, some form of adjustment strategy is often the only realistic alternative. Having said that, as in all disciplines, it is accepted that there are varying individual and collective coping strategies in different setting such as violence in country of origin, camps, settlement, resettlement, repatriation, reconstruction & reconciliation and humanitarian assistances. With regard to refugees in host countries, Jackson (1987) noted that they have to cope with life and accept the things they must change and work from what they can, although this quest may be hampered by varying degrees of persecution, social, discrimination or racism.

The experience of the World War Two refugees has taught us that a refugee’s problem are far from over once he/she is provided with food, clothing, shelter and work in the country of refuge. Consciously or not, the loss of familiar socio-cultural surroundings remains a problem for decades if not for life (Harrell-Bond, 1996). As a group, the refugees have to re-establish some kind of socio-cultural orientation (Devereux, 1982, cited in Miserez, 1987) in order to find new methods for identification. Whether or not they actually succeed remains questionable. However, it is between these two types of friction – individual insecurity in the new surroundings and collective socio-cultural insecurity – that the psychological insecurity must be located.

Historically, all communities have resources for dealing with difficulties, illness, and distress. They normally deploy their own adaptive strategies against man-made or natural disasters and as Bennet (1976:846) note, ‘the majority of coping mechanisms are based on precedents’. However, some elements of the coping mechanism might have been weakened as a result of the social, political and economic uprooting, for example, the coping strategies of the Great Lakes Regions (GLR) population, which is made up mostly of subsistence farmers and nomadic herders, are being systematically undermined by protracted conflict and natural disasters, such as recurrent drought (Damme, 1995). The Somalis have particular ways of dealing with insecurities they are faced with, which are based on social networks and dispersing investments within these networks.

The current fashion for war trauma project based on western psychological concepts applied to non-western populations in various war zones worldwide seems at risk of ignoring local norms and traditions, and the coping mechanism based upon them (Summerfield, 1999). This position is reinforced by Bracken et al (1998) who is of the opinion that there is no one psychology to be considered universal valid. I agree with both positions, as people make sense of their experiences in references to cultural frameworks and local cosmologies, and their reactions are, to a great extend, influenced by their perceptions of the meaning of those events. These meanings may not be psychological or medical but may be personal, political, social and cultural factors, as well as military circumstances which mediate war experiences and influences whether an individual does or does not become traumatized (Summerfield, 1999). However, current international psycho-social policy is based on the idea that post-traumatic stress is universal and intervention is universally required albeit with cultural modifications.

A study of Somalis in London, which examined the impact of the stresses of adaptation that follow flight and resettlement found that the different ‘risks’ of impoverishment relating to displacement (Cernea, 1995 cited in Ager, 1999), insecure housing not war experiences, torture, detention, nor death of relatives, was the most significant variable predicting which refugees would report mental health problems. Besides, by automatically, constructing refugees as traumatized, the international psycho-social model fails to make a proper distinction between the experience of distressing events and the appearance of a post-traumatic stress disorder. Consequently, such negative construction of the refugee experience presents a picture of collective mental disorder and their categorization as passive victims who need the assistance of western – trained ‘experts’. Here, the local resources and system are ignored as these ‘experts’ focus more on what they see as weaknesses and deficits than on strengths and abilities.

Understandings of distressing events vary between situations, and these variations are very important as to how people themselves perceive and cope with these events. As mentioned above, communities have resources for coping with distress that they draw on in situations of adversity, an approach advocated by medical anthropologists and cultural psychologists as it emphasizes how culture influences how people understand and respond to distressing events. I agree with this approach as here, recognition is given to the important role of local healing practices and coping strategies or as Nordstrom (1997) noted, recognition is given to the many ways in which people engage in ‘world-making’ after events of armed conflicts.

Practitioners who place culture at the center of their work with war-affected communities believe that the starting point for any intervention or assistance offered must be an understanding of the local community resources for dealing with difficulties, illness and distress. In other words, the cultural and social systems in which people find themselves is central to any interventions or assistance programmes. Moreover, the capacity to draw on social or religious ideals and on co-operative effort and solidarity can bolster psychological and physical defences in even the most extreme situation (Summerfiled, 1999, cited in Ager, 1999). Equally, some of the commonly described factors that may play a role in how well people cope with distressing experiences are:

• Social environment such as emotional, moral and practical support from family, friends, neighbours and support groups.

• Individual factors such as age, personality, and previous experiences and coping strategies.

• Ideological factors such as political commitments or religious faith.

• Cultural resources and collective coping strategies such as mass funerals, rituals and ceremonies

Finally, the distress and suffering caused by war cannot be captured in universal concepts, and are instead related to context and local cultures. At times, Western models of trauma may be in direct opposition to local cultural understandings of distress, or fit poorly with local norms and values. Thus, there is a serious need for a humanistic approach that holistically views the issue as social healing and reconstruction of valued ways of life and institutions cannot be managed by outsiders.



Deeq Yusuf (Inacabdisatar) MA;MA;BA (Hons). London, UK
Kuseeyman11@hotmail.com

Hakan ka akhriso qoraladii hore ee Deeq Yusuf: