Downtown Chicago
I’m writing this blog as I sit in Chicago Midway airport after a week-long EMDR training with therapists who primarily work in downtown Chicago, inner-city work, with distressed urban areas of concentrated poverty and low income. We brought an approved curriculum (I didn’t write) yet I was trained in, that met EMDRIA approved standards for basic training, but unfortunately didn’t strongly emphasize diversity, equity and inclusion. It was taught by 4 white trainers amongst a large group of participants who identified as Black Indigenous People of Color, Latina, Asian, South Indian and East Indian.
My initial goal was just to learn the material in the curriculum and become competent to present it and intervene as a coach in small break-out groups and dyads as participants practiced Basic EMDR protocols. On our opening day, it became clear to me that our audience was not likely going to respond to all our content, client examples and videos. The lead trainers’ background was from the Military with specialization in Police and First Responders. This curriculum worked beautifully if you were part of this cohort as all the examples were appropriate to that population. However, if you were black in a city where gun violence and physical safety around police was a daily concern, this could have been a significant trigger.
While the content was not religious specific, there was definitely some sprinkling of religious beliefs from some of the trainers within the examples offered and this was triggering for some of our audience. While authenticity is important and I honestly believe the trainers with strong Faith were well-meaning, their individual lens of religion as a strength and coping mechanism was not applicable to all.
Trauma and Dissociation
While most participants did follow the direction of the training and the mandatory practice in dyads, there were some who were triggered in a way that may have been prevented had we really known the population we were training. Again, as a new member of the team who had seen very positive outcomes from previous trainings, I hadn’t even thought to ask about the population and or questioned the authority of my boss who wrote and coordinated this training. Yet, it became clear to myself and another colleague from the West Coast that addressing very specific trauma interventions appropriate to the trainees’ population served could have made a world of difference in their integration and buy-in to the training concepts.
Dissociation is the disconnection and lack of continuity between thoughts, memories, surroundings, actions, and identity. Some of us experience this in a “light form” in situations such as when you are driving and arrive at point B with really no recollection of how you got there. A part of us temporarily just checks out and we continue to function, but not with any sort of presence. Yet, a more significant degree of dissociation can arise as a defense mechanism in order for someone to survive the feeling of being unsafe, and this shows up in present life, but usually is a young part that learned this coping mechanism in early childhood.
We trained about this, and addressed ways to keep clients present to avoid this when working with them. However, I don’t think there was great anticipation for how some of the participants might have been triggered by the lack of diversity in the curriculum, that caused them to not be able to show up and even be present with their group partner for the practice sessions.
Learning and Open Discussion
On the last day of our training, I was pleased to see that our lead trainer heard the feedback that was being brought to him and went back to the section on cultural diversity. As the discussion opened up, there was significant feedback that was hard for some to hear, and yet a very necessary piece that I believe allowed participants to show up safely and express their beliefs, concerns, and feelings about what didn’t work for them. Some identified that it felt like this section was an aftermath that only got 10-15 minutes of time.
I think that many were respectful in their feedback and could articulate their concerns with the message that much of the training focused on the specialty area of the Military (which made sense when the training was offered near a large military base) and the trainees and client population served fit that cohort. However, the feedback was loud and clear that the material and examples didn’t acknowledge the traumatic experiences of the participants and the cultural dynamics of those right in front of us.
Where We Go From Here
I know there are some things that I am not in control over, including the curriculum as it currently stands. Yet, as I get trained up this year and launched into the lead trainer role for the Pacific NorthWest with another colleague from Washington who is also very mindful of the need for diversity, equity and inclusion, I believe that we will make different decisions about how we present and explore case conceptualization of more diverse complex trauma perspective.
I will also be providing consulting to trainees we met in this training, and find ways to get permission to record and use more diverse EMDR processing video examples that address generational trauma, religious trauma and reflect the inclusion of other marginalized groups such as persons in the LGBTQIA community.
I think there were many lessons learned here. I am hopeful that my voice and the voice of other trainers who are willing to speak up and advocate for these important shifts in content, will be heard and given permission to help integrate these changes.