Images of deeply distressed refugees heading west have become a central representation of the ongoing conflict in the Ukraine. But we need to resist the simplistic labelling of the millions leaving the war-torn country in pursuit of safe haven as “traumatised”. Like so many stereotypes, this representation is neither accurate nor helpful and can lead to refugees being disempowered and ultimately resented by their hosts.
First there is the issue of accuracy. Traumatic events are generally agreed to be a particular kind of event associated with actual or threatened risk to life or serious injury, including sexual violence. And know from the World Mental Health Surveys that the greatest burden of such trauma is evident in those who experience war.
For sure there are some people fleeing the Ukraine whose mental and physical health has been profoundly and irrevocably altered by their experience of the war and they must must receive the appropriate care.
But by far the most common response to a events such as war, political violence, sexual assault, accidents and natural disaster is to show psychological resilience. Humans are defined more by their ability to “bounce back” than their ability to succumb to adversity. For the most part and in the vast majority of cases, an estimated 90 per cent of people who experience direct traumatic events do not have adverse outcomes in the long term.
Humans are defined more by their ability to "bounce back" than their ability to succumb to adversity
Exposure to extremely traumatic events can trigger extreme psychological distress. Indeed not to be distressed by the experience of war may speak to a far greater pathology. This distress tends to be short-lived. Most of us learn to go on with our lives.
Distressed state
So people recently arrived from Ukraine may get here in a very distressed state. However this does not mean that this will always be the case or that those who are distressed now will go on to develop mental health problems. In fact the opposite it true: for the vast majority, the distress resolves itself.
There are factors that make resolution of this distress more or less likely. And so it is important that the support made available is not counterproductive. We know from decades of research with traumatised populations that there are two particular issues that can make things worse.
The first is a tendency to see those we believe to be traumatised as being incapable of making decisions. And the second is our tendency to make little or no demands on those who have experienced trauma.
Treating refugees in this way disempowers them and is consistent with our sense that they are passive victims of their circumstances. But people fleeing war rarely see themselves as victims – this is a term they reserve for casualties and fatalities of the war. And in virtually all cases of those who have left Ukraine, their departure by definition has shown they are not passive. They have made rational decisions to undertake arduous journeys often at great personal cost to protect their own safety and the safety of their children.
Policies based on seeing refugees as helpless, though perhaps politically expedient, are built on the stereotyped representation of those fleeing war. It is the basis for questionable practices – such as direct-provision-style solutions which further disempower the vulnerable fresh from the horrors of war.
Passive victims
It can also erode public support. In recent weeks, we have seen more and more public discourse about the health and social care costs of the humanitarian crisis and the economic burden of hosting refugees in Ireland and across the EU. In part this is built on the representation of refugees as passive victims needing support and resources.
We should remind ourselves traumatised people and refugees are also nurses, cleaners, teachers and builders
We should be reminding ourselves that traumatised people and refugees arriving here are also nurses and cleaners and teachers and builders. We should also recognise that research shows negotiating adversity requires financial independence and being meaningfully occupied. This means jobs.
Research from the International Monetary Fund IMF is very clear. Migration no matter how controversial politically makes sense economically. Over time, migration brings workers of all skill levels who improve gross domestic product and living standards in their new home countries
Having the support of those who have walked in your shoes is also vital. Refugee populations are best placed to support each other. This develops workable solutions and the process is experienced as empowering.
We have already demonstrated our commitment to supporting Ukrainians. As we go about fulfilling this commitment, it is worth doing it in a way that maximises the benefit to us all.
Supports need to be offered in a way that promotes agency and autonomy for new arrivals.It starts by dispensing with the narrative of traumatised people and ends with seeing and respecting the value our newcomers bring.
Orla Muldoon is professor of psychology at University of Limerick