An article in New Scientist, May 10, 2008, written by Peter Aldhous, reports on research on the fate of children in Uganda and other African war zones, who went through horrendous experiences, such as being kidnapped and abducted, being beaten, taken from their families, and forced to fight, kill people and even commit atrocities. Instead being a 'lost generation" as has been predicted, many seem to reintegrate into their home environments after the immediate warfare was over. Furthermore these child soldiers seem to often turn out in better shape when compared to those who remained at home and didn't have to fight at all. They were more likely to be politically active and to function well in society in terms of being able to earn a living and being otherwise productive. This certainly casts doubt on the trauma theory of psychopathology.
But what is really the dynamic that would influence these child soldiers to do better ultimately than those who were far less traumatized? Perhaps the child soldiers who were not forced to passively watch the violence but instead actively participated, suffer from lower levels of survivor guilt. Perhaps being beaten oneself has far less effect than watching others being beaten. Perhaps being a witness to violence rather than participating in it is the trauma that leads to a psychologically poor outcome.
The report of data coming out of these extreme war situations has to have implications for the trauma theory of psychopathology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
