This paper, after reporting some research indicating the
long-term effects of
the experience of the Second World War, looks at how such a traumatic event
and its sequelae should be understood in terms of the theoretical framework
supporting the use of reminiscence work, most especially Erikson's life stages.
Traumatic memories of the war are rarely reported in published accounts of
reminiscence work. It is pointed out that this may be partly due to people with
painful memories not volunteering for reminiscence groups, and that
Coleman's (1986) research data would support this conclusion. Coleman's
work has not been sufficiently ‘heard’ because
of the much stronger framing
of reminiscence as stimulation by such authors as Norris (1986). The paper
looks at interpersonal difficulties of servicemen and civilians in communicating
about the war; and why they might well find it easier to utilise the emotionally
simpler and less unpleasant accounts offered by the media, especially film. The
leaders of reminiscence groups, often having had little training, operate
without awareness of such issues, and within a framework where ‘reminiscence
as stimulation’ has been transmuted into the trivialising
‘reminiscence as fun’.
It is suggested that mental health workers should offer regular supervision and
training to reminiscence group leaders. The need for clinical awareness of the
importance of the war in shaping people's lives both before and after the war
is highlighted, as is the need for readily available and sympathetic
psychotherapeutic services for this cohort.