Response to Injury: Toward Ethical Construction of the Other

Healing Elements of Therapeutic Conversation: Dialogue as an Embodiment of Love

“…The conversation persists primarily in the monologic domain, which in such situations is maladaptive because the network members' understandings of the situation have failed to resolve the situation, and no new ideas can emerge if everyone is stuck in monologic mode. Distressed network members are caught in a dilemma: To find their way out of their situation, they must shift into dialogue, but dialogue by its nature is unpredictable and therefore particularly threatening for people struggling with trauma (Kamya & Trimble, 2002). Thus, in the case illustration, both Ingrid and her mother said how afraid they had been before the meeting.…”

Ethics and International Discourse in Social Work: The Case of Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Legislation

“…Our case study reveals the danger that monologic discourse can lead to the annihilation of the other. It seeks to immobilize or destroy the other without consideration of the other's subjectivity (Kamya and Trimble 2002). The movement to dialogic discourse assumes an open engagement of all parties, where every participant takes into account and accepts the other's agency and subjective experience.…”

Promoting Forgiveness Through Restorative Conferencing

“…The aim of the dialogue is to repair the harm done to the victim by the offender by allowing all concerned (victim, offender, and their parents and supporters), plus a representative of the institution or community within which the offence occurred and the protagonists belong, to meet in a well-managed, protected, and psychologically safe environment and review what happened, the reasons for its occurrence, and the preferred outcomes. This presentation shows that unlike the old retributive system that focuses only on charging the offender, the outcome of which leads to retaliatory justice of imprisonment, restorative conferencing emphasizes the need for dialogic exchanges between the perpetrator and the victim; the ultimate result is promotion of peace and forgiveness (Consedine, 1995;Kamya & Trimble, 2003;Trebilcock, 2001;Wachtel, 1999). Thus, Rivett (2003) was alluding to the dialogue of restorative conferencing when he observed that "In the latter dialogue, both perpetrator and victim witness and hear the pain of the other and are transformed by the experience" (p. 445).…”

“…Other important planning considerations include the need to determine if one needs assistance, e.g., a co-facilitator, a translator/interpreter, or an observer to give you feedback; determine which language is common to all involved and needs to be used; plan for what may happen if the conference does not reach an agreement or the offender fails to satisfy the agreement; and secure all the necessary items for a successful conference (Brendtro, Brokenleg, & Van Bockern, 1990;Consedine, 1995;Kamya & Trimble, 2003;Trebilcock, 2001). The necessary items for implementing the conference include a copy of the conference facilitator's script; agreement forms and other required forms; the conference seating plan; participant seating labels; a "Do not disturb" sign to be pasted at the door of the room where the meeting is being held; a box of tissues; and refreshments.…”