Strengths-based approach for refugee children

Bracken, Giller, and Summerfield (1995) argue that current concepts embedded in psychological responses to war and atrocity is limited for a number of reasons. Firstly, the notion of individuality, which is the underlying philosophy, has been derived from western culture but is not universal. Secondly, is the assumption that all cultural groups will respond to traumatic experiences in the same way, and present symptoms and signs of distress that can be understood across different settings. In fact, the validity of commonly used diagnoses, such as Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), has not been established across different cultural groups (Kleinman, 1987). Thirdly is the idea that treatment approaches developed in the West are accepted as the best approaches to adopt even with non western populations, and that ‘healing in a world-wide context is a multi-faceted phenomenon’ (Bracken et al., 1995). They caution that if western models of therapy are applied universally, then this expertise may undermine local community structures which can in themselves be crucial to protecting people from the effects of trauma. In addition, these dominant discourses of Western expert knowledge can silence the marginalised cultural discourses about how mental or emotional distress is understood, thereby undermining the very identity of the people this is attempting to assist (Hughes, 2014).

Ncube (2006) describes how the Tree of Life uses the tree as a creative metaphor on which people are invited to map out their lives. People begin by tracing their cultural and social histories in the roots, which may include writing or drawing such things as where they have come from, their family origins, those who have taught them most in life, their religious roots, or a treasured song. The ground contains features of their current lives, including where they live and what they are doing now. Strengths and abilities are mapped onto the main trunk of the tree, which may be identified by what others have observed of them, and stories are told about how these skills have been developed. Finally, hopes and dreams for the future are put in the branches of the trees, with the names of important people from the present and past on different leaves, and gifts that the person has been given in the fruits of the tree. Through a process of narrative questioning, people are invited to build rich descriptions of their lives, identifying their resources and skills, the social history of how these developed, and how these can lead them towards their desired future. Having built up these rich descriptions, people then share their trees with each other, giving words of encouragement, and talking together about how to face ongoing challenges and respond in ways that are congruent with their cultural values. Finally, people are invited to share their trees with important people in their lives, either by writing letters to these people, or by inviting them to celebrations of their work at which they are given certificates acknowledging their strengths and achievements (Hughes, 2014). Ncube (2006) and Ncube-Milo and Denborough (2008) provide detailed descriptions of how this approach works in practice. The Tree of Life approach is a particularly appropriate psychosocial intervention for refugee communities for a number of reasons (Hughes, 2014):

• As it is a visual method where information can be conveyed through imagery, it can be helpful where English is not a first language and verbal communication is limited.
• The process involves each person producing a personal document that can be shared with others, which helps to take the work beyond the immediate group. White and Epston (1990) write about the importance of witnessing (others hearing about our preferred versions of our lives) as a way of consolidating and supporting change.
• The approach fits with a storytelling tradition, which is an important component of the heritage of many refugee communities.
• The Tree of Life grounds people in their communities, past and present, and invites them to recognise and draw on potential support within their social networks. For refugees, in particular, who have often experienced the traumatic loss of these important relationships, this can be a very powerful process.
• Even when people are displaced and so much is lost from their lives, the Tree of Life is a way of helping connect with past hopes and resources that can continue to sustain them in their daily life.
• The methodology creates a context from which traumatic responses can be understood so that people do not experience these as a sign of weakness and a point of shame. As Rutter (1996) cautions, people become refugees because of political factors and the political dimension should not be forgotten when working psychologically with them.