PTNv4i1, Training Volunteers for Re-Entry: Part 1

Even if the time of their assignment has been relatively short, say two�to ten weeks, it is likely to have been very stressful, and the volunteer�may show some signs of post-traumatic stress or return culture shock.�People may deny or minimize the symptoms, which often appear like a minor�but chronic depression (and may respond to similar therapies of�counseling and seratonin drugs), telling the volunteer s/he�s all right�now, s/he�s home and get over it. Often this comes on just as the�returned volunteer is trying to convince people of the importance of the�experience and the situation s/he lived in. Denial may be even more�disappointing as people fail to engage with the returnee and ask about�what s/he has learned or felt�even actively avoiding the volunteer in�order not to have their conscience pricked.

Wolfe�s novel, You Can�t Go Home Again, gives us an important lesson: no�matter how much you love your home, and your compatriots love you, you�return changed from any intense overseas living experience. You can�t go�home again, not because it is like the river that changes so you never�step in the same river twice, but because you will have�changed. It is not the same you who returns. The challenge of�holding onto one�s identity when going into an unfamiliar culture, where�symbols and roles are changed, becomes as great an unexpected challenge�when returning. Who am I now that I have lived with satyagraha in�the midst of a violent situation? Who am I with this obligation to�convince these people of their connection and responsibility to those�people who have affected me so much?

Pablo Stanfield was the first long-term volunteer with PBI in Guatemala (1983) and worked with peace teams until 1989. He is a Quaker mediator and specialist in intercultural conflict resolution who recently moved to Davis CA and is entering a PsyD program.

PO Box 10372 San Antonio TX 78210-0372 Telephone: 877 814 6972 E-mail: [email protected]

WINTER 1999: v4i1 INDEX PTN INDEX HOME		WINTER, 1999: Volume 4 Issue 1 Training Volunteers for Re-Entry: Part 1 by Pablo Stanfield When the Peace Corps was formed, there were doubts about the necessity of�training the new college graduates that made up the first Peace Corps�Volunteers (PCVs). A combination of history, political situation, and�geography were provided, in addition to language training�along with�requiring the PCVs to learn the national anthem. With this skimpy�background, the Corps expected volunteers to survive, thrive and provide�models of modernization for the people they lived among. As we can now expect, many stressed PCVs were victims of culture shock�(first identified and defined in 1964). Some fled home; some went native�or hippie; some served as shock troopers for materialist market�capitalism, rock�n�roll and individualist �democracy� � la USA, and were�untouched by the real life and thought of those around them. These diversely different responses have been dealt with by almost�universal requirements of pre-departure training and counseling for those�embarking on a period of living overseas. Scientific socio-psychological�research has demonstrated a 60% greater chance of staying full term and�equivalently higher success at achieving goals for those who have�preparation that includes intercultural communication, conflict�resolution and self-awareness components. The one thing we still have not figured out is how to bring the�experience home. Worse yet, we do not know how to bring our volunteers�home, to get them �in out of the cold.� �Bringing understanding of the�world home� to the USA is one of the primary objectives of the Peace�Corps, and ex-PCVs have been concerned with this for some time. In some�ways it has been a success, as a large cadre of idealists�who have seen�the real world abroad and formed friendships with people in all sorts of�Third World countries�talk, share, and become involved in politics here. Those of us forming the peace army need to be diligent in bringing our�volunteers home and making sure that their experience is understood in the First�World, that their information and their living knowledge are not forgotten, and�that the stress of return does not alienate the returned volunteers. It was Pierre Casse, in the early days of intercultural communication�research of the 1970s, who described the well-known V and W curves of�experience that most transplants experience abroad. Once we understand�that it is normal, and very similar to the adjustment process described�by Dr. K�hbler-Ross in grieving, we begin to be more accepting and able�to deal with the changes that provoke cultural shock. What we learned was that a similar effect presents itself when people go�back home. Suddenly, their original culture seems alien to them, if they�have been away long enough to adapt to their foreign circumstance.

		Even if the time of their assignment has been relatively short, say two�to ten weeks, it is likely to have been very stressful, and the volunteer�may show some signs of post-traumatic stress or return culture shock.�People may deny or minimize the symptoms, which often appear like a minor�but chronic depression (and may respond to similar therapies of�counseling and seratonin drugs), telling the volunteer s/he�s all right�now, s/he�s home and get over it. Often this comes on just as the�returned volunteer is trying to convince people of the importance of the�experience and the situation s/he lived in. Denial may be even more�disappointing as people fail to engage with the returnee and ask about�what s/he has learned or felt�even actively avoiding the volunteer in�order not to have their conscience pricked. Wolfe�s novel, You Can�t Go Home Again, gives us an important lesson: no�matter how much you love your home, and your compatriots love you, you�return changed from any intense overseas living experience. You can�t go�home again, not because it is like the river that changes so you never�step in the same river twice, but because you will have�changed. It is not the same you who returns. The challenge of�holding onto one�s identity when going into an unfamiliar culture, where�symbols and roles are changed, becomes as great an unexpected challenge�when returning. Who am I now that I have lived with satyagraha in�the midst of a violent situation? Who am I with this obligation to�convince these people of their connection and responsibility to those�people who have affected me so much? This challenge holds even if one is spiritually centered and mentally�rock-solid, because others� perception of you will be different and they�will treat you in a different way. If you have any public exposure,�strangers may recognize you and treat you familiarly, leaving you to�wonder, �Who was that? Where do I know him from?� Friends may be in awe�of you or find your new convictions uncomfortable for them. They may ask�bumptious questions about your supposed heroics or make ambulance-chasing�requests for more gory details about things you wish you had never experienced and want to forget. Their expectations and your reality do not mesh. The second time I returned from Peace Brigades International service in�Central America, where two dear friends had been tortured to death by death�squads, I did quite a lot of organizing and public speaking about the�reality of the Central America wars and the United States� role in them.�I remember how my balloon was popped by a woman who had stayed after one�discussion with activists who were ready to get their town moving. She�inquired about my involvement with people in poverty and whose lives were�in jeopardy for telling the truth, as my friends� had been. Then she�asked me for advice: �I have a terrible dilemma: I don�t know whether to�buy a new VCR with my VISA or MasterCharge�� I still do not know how to respond to her, but she was only one of many�who confronted me with the unreality of living in affluence after�spending time in the opposite conditions. So how can we best prepare volunteers to have a realistic understanding�of what may be ahead for them when they return? Perhaps the most�elementary place to begin is with the recruitment and selection process. We�need to ask a few queries about the person�s psychological resilience�and reality testing in their community: How accurately does this person�see the social support system in which s/he lives? Do others�perceive her or him to be adaptable and tolerant as well as centered? Do�others see themselves similarly? Do they have expectations of what�the volunteer will do upon return? We need to begin sharing the kind of information I have included above�before volunteers are committed to leaving for an assignment. They need�to be counseled to consider not only the short-term changes and�challenges of the work they wish to do; they also need to reflect on what�they will do upon re-entry, and whether they have the inner and social�resources to cope with it all. Each peace team organization should develop a comprehensive training plan�that includes not only orientation for going abroad and doing work for�ahimsa�nonviolence�but also for coming home and bringing the�conflict�s concerns to the richest nation in the world. Different kinds of people have different needs. This seems obvious. Good�trainers take into account different learning styles, different personal�needs while in training, differerent social support requirements and�perceptual channels. Perhaps we also need to consider even more aspects�of character and social roles when evaluating the needs the volunteer will have�when coming home. Will this volunteer need support in returning to work?�How about training for speaking, writing the story? Psychological�counseling can be useful in a myriad of situations: should they learn�re-evaluation co-counseling or should their support system raise funds�for a psychologist? At very least, there should be designated persons to�sit and listen as the returned volunteer just talks to debrief. As Victor�Frankl points out, one of our most human needs is for someone to hear our�story. How can we evaluate the resources a support group, church or other�organization can provide when their volunteer returns. Often this is�the point when the group�s fund-raising and other activities are expected to�end. They may be surprised that there is more the volunteer needs from�his/her community at this point. More than their prayers, now their�intimate, loving attention is needed, and it needs to be provided as the�volunteer requests, not according to what the support team thinks would�be adequate. Since volunteers know themselves best and what their�experiences have been, their support teams must listen carefully to what�they think they need and make it easy to ask for things that seem�unimportant or don�t occur to those who stayed at home. In my own case,�despite assurances and offers �to be there for you,� my needs were�greater than people had estimated. I was discouraged to discover that�even coming to a speech was too much for some individuals on the support�team. Besides this, differing home situations will lead to different learning�goals for a return training. Various situations in the country of service�may suggest a variety of objectives also. How can we assess what to work�on after we begin to debrief the volunteer at the end of service? What do�we know that s/he may have forgotten in the intensity of involvement with�the peace team? What does others� past experience of return tell this�person to watch out for? These sorts of queries, as well as trainers� abilities and resources, will�inherently determine what kind of re-orientation or return training an�organization offers. Nonetheless, I would recommend that the whole�concern be considered before recruitment so that the need does not�present itself just as the volunteer is leaving. With foresight, many�difficulties can be avoided. With anticipation, we avoid disappointment of�unmet expectations. I suggest that training for the volunteer in and with�the community to which s/he plans to return is key to achieving a�smoother transition. And every peace keeper or satyagrahi can�benefit from that. Pablo Stanfield was the first long-term volunteer with PBI in Guatemala (1983) and worked with peace teams until 1989. He is a Quaker mediator and specialist in intercultural conflict resolution who recently moved to Davis CA and is entering a PsyD program. TOP • CURRENT Issue Index • PTN Index • HOME