There have been critics over Western psychosocial interventions in conflict areas. Most experts intervening to the fields are Western, working in different countries all over the world: Africa, Asia, and Southern America mainly. They face a big challenge related to the culture and customs, and they are not familiar with local traditions at all. Sometimes their work gets undermined by the lack of local context knowledge, which would ease their incomparable efforts to save lives for a better world.
It is in this spirit that some researchers and helpers learned from the field and tried to tailor some models to would work adequately for better and sustainable results.
The M.Wessels & C.Monteiro idea of combining Western and local psychosocial interventions on the field is perfect because it embraces both aspects of traditional and modern context. But in order to be able to know exactly its efficacy and effectiveness (Western & local), we need to analyse both Western and local approaches first and foremost separately.
1. Local approaches
Local approaches have been used for centuries and hundreds of centuries or years before the introduction of the Western ones. According to the local people, it worked out perfectly, in accordance to their customs and rites.
But the results depend on how we perceive things and also our beliefs. If the community believes that a person with PTSD is under a demon’s influence and must go through ritual matters, it won't help that much, and the last intervention would be to discriminate and exclude that person from the community. But of course there are some good approaches as well within the local approaches as we will see in upcoming paragraphs.
1.1. Positive side
-The local approaches are well integrated and accepted by both heads of communities and community members
- Traditionally & cultural oriented methods
- Strong connection with ancestors and other family members or loved ones who passed away (living together forever)
- Financially affordable (no training fees, no cost for healing mostly)
- Focusing on community at large and individual at small scale level
(The Western focuses excessively on individuals rather than community - M.Wessels & C.Monteiro, p.267)
1.2. Negative side
- Victimization of individuals sometimes
- Focusing largely on the community rather than looking for a personalized solution to individuals
- Extremism (not easy to change)
- No sustainability, no follow-up after intervention
2. Western approaches
Based on the study oriented research, renewed often to be more up-to-date approaches, the Western approaches seem to be more effective in prevention, solution, and sustainability. But it also has some negative effects for the community, especially due to the bridge between the lack of knowledge of the history of region and other related key strongholds of the local context( Annemiek Ritchers ,p.120-121), and it intends to interfere with local culture and even replace local customs by the Western ones.
2.1. Positive side
- Emphasises on individual and personalized solutions
- Responding to the “psychological "needs of victims
- Clear implementation
- No harmful effects on individuals or community
2.2 Negative side
- Perceived as foreign culture & unwelcome
- Interfering with local culture
- Fully individually oriented (directly) and less community oriented (indirectly)
- Not fully accepted by local community
The greatest challenges & how to increase the local autonomy
Behaviour changing is the greatest challenge in this issue. But building local capacity (Wessels.P.269) and boosting the [elders’ & opinion leaders’] self-esteem by validation of the -communal traditional aspects of culture ( M.Wessels & C.Monteiro .P 271) is the only way to win "trust" first as the pathway to move forward and combine both Western and local approaches for better results in psycho-social intervention in the aftermath of war and other violent conflicts for a sustainable reconstruction and psycho-social rehabilitation of the community. Together with this, the local community needs to be interactively empowered so that instead of being told what they need and what they should do, they feel enabled to find their own solutions to issues they have themselves identified as problems, not being imposed by expatriates (Annemiek Ritchers,P.124). Mutual learning is important as well, because the good approaches from one side can help to improve another side as well.
The strong pillar of effectiveness of both approaches (Western & local) relies on a combination of work of healing that fits local beliefs and culture. Moderation would be needed in this case, to decrease the extreme local dependence of local negative approaches, to be adjusted with Western positive approaches as well, in accordance to the local context and needs of victims and the well being of local community (M.Wessels & C.Monteiro, p.268)