Education, Culture and Society, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Fam Process. 2012 Sep;51(3):391-404. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01404.x.
In this article, we reflect on our evolving ideas regarding a dialogical approach to refugee care. Broadening the predominant phased trauma care model and its engaging of directive expertise in symptom reduction, meaning making, and rebuilding connectedness, these developing dialogical notions involve the negotiation of silencing and disclosure, meaning and absurdity, hope and hopelessness in a therapeutic dialogue that accepts its encounter of cultural and social difference. In locating therapeutic practice within these divergent approaches, we argue an orientation on collaborative dialogue may operate together with notions from the phased trauma care model as heuristic background in engaging a polyphonic understanding of coping with individual and family sequelae of forced displacement. This locating of therapeutic practice, as informed by each perspective, invites us to remain present to fragments of therapeutic positioning that resonate power imbalance or appropriation in a therapeutic encounter imbued with a social context that silences refugees' suffering. In a clinical case analysis, we further explore these relational complexities of negotiating directive expertise and collaborative dialogue in the therapeutic encounter with refugee clients.
在本文中，我们反思了我们对难民关怀的对话方法的不断发展的想法。拓宽主导的阶段性创伤护理模式及其在减少症状、赋予意义和重建联系方面的指导专业知识，这些不断发展的对话概念涉及在治疗对话中对沉默和披露、意义和荒谬、希望和绝望的协商，该对话接受其对文化和社会差异的遭遇。在将治疗实践定位在这些不同方法中时，我们认为，协作对话的取向可以与阶段性创伤护理模式的概念一起作为启发背景，以参与对个人和家庭因被迫流离失所而产生的后果的多声部理解。这种治疗实践的定位，由每个观点提供信息，邀请我们关注治疗定位的片段，这些片段在治疗遭遇中引起权力失衡或侵占共鸣，而这种治疗遭遇充满了使难民的苦难沉默的社会背景。在临床案例分析中，我们进一步探讨了在与难民客户的治疗遭遇中协商指导专业知识和协作对话的这些关系复杂性。
