Pathways for healing and coping with violence, terror and dislocation. *

As a disclaimer, I must warn you from the start --and specially those who are still expecting a recipe for dealing with the consequences of massive trauma-- that although this paper offers a critique of the trauma discourse and related interventions, it is not my intention here to prescribe an infallible and universal “new pathway” to healing and coping with war trauma, because I am simply unconvinced of its existence. Above all, it is not my job here to speak for the survivors about what should or should not happen with their suffering and their ways of healing, coping and surviving. My main concern here is to reflect critically on some of the theoretical basis and practical aspects of intervention strategies and rehabilitation programs, and the social, political and cultural contexts in which they are applied. There is growing consensus that we should re-examine pain and suffering brought about by conflict and war (political violence, terror and dislocation), and the various forms of healing and care, which are meant to help people “to pick up the pieces and move on with their lives.” Before moving to the discussion of humanitarian interventions and alternative pathways for healing and coping with the consequences of violence, terror and dislocation, let us review some basic assumptions and build a common ground where to place our discussion. Building a common ground We know that most, if not all, contemporary conflicts and modern warfare affect civilian populations many times more than the armed forces directly involved in the conflict (nowadays, death rates among the military are not much higher than the mortality experience of the postal service). We also know, that most of these armed conflicts involves politically marginal, ethnically distinct peoples, so-called * This is a working document prepared for the Rehabilitation and Research Centre for