The Development of an Instrument for Measuring Healing

The three of us have very different backgrounds – not only due to our nationality. We work in the fields of clinical psychology, and developmental psychology which lead us to different questions when reading the article about an instrument of measuring healing. Of course, there are always methodological questions that arise: Is the method of brainstorming appropriate? What do the authors mean when they talk about “model building” in AMOS? Were there hypotheses about the number of factors that the data should be divided in? And if that is the case, what factors should be articulated? How are the results influenced by the self- selection of the sample? Are these results influenced by the high number of older participants? Nevertheless, these questions did not end up being the most important ones. The most important question from our perspectives (and there are, of course, many others) was the question concerning the concept of healing itself. What does healing mean? The definition the authors provide is the following: “Healing is the human experience of self-discovery and transformation that results in a sense of being whole and connected” (Meza & Fahoome, 2008, p. 360). The authors admit that this phenomenon has many different names in psychology. They say that “different disciplines or individuals label what seems to be the same concept using different words: revealing the true self/the inner child, self-actualization, recovery, reconciliation, grieving, becoming conscious, individuation, and empowerment” (Meza & Fahoome, 2008, p. 355). But how are these different terms to be coordinated? Are these terms different aspects of the same continuum? Or is identity development attributed to some process that underlies all these terms[1] ?

We have to be aware that every therapeutic approach or psychological theory is strongly influenced by diverse theoretical perspectives. The terms above suggest that the struggle for becoming whole and connected is the ultimate goal a human strives for, or at least should strive for. We subscribe to this assumption. If we assume that every human is longing to find an answer to the question “Who am I?”, Rogers’ (1961) concept of self -actualization is one way of describing identity development. Revealing the inner child/true self, becoming conscious, individuation, empowerment and “the struggle for becoming whole and connected” implies particular objectives of identity development; whereas recovery, reconciliation, and grieving suggest that identity development can – in some cases – only progress when one overcomes traumatic incidents. Should healing be equated with identity development? Looking at the specifications the authors provide for the definition of healing, trauma and recurring painful experiences are required to initiate the healing process. However, is this true for identity development in general? The answer depends on the definition of “trauma” and “painful experience”. In medical dictionaries[2], trauma “refers to an experience that is emotionally painful, distressful, or shocking, which often results in lasting mental and physical effects”. Such definitions leave a lot of room for interpretations. Erikson (1968) claims that human (identity) development can be described with the help of a sequence of crises. These crises stand for developmental tasks a person has to solve. Solving these tasks is not always easy; indeed frustration is a necessary aspect of each crisis. But is that what the authors were referring to? Probably not, since the setting is a different one. They are talking about clients, patients, or whatever people are called, who are seeking help (cp. Bibace, Clegg, & Valsiner, 2009).

Nevertheless, even the second specification of their definition of healing could refer to a non-therapeutic setting. They say that the “beginning of the healing process [is] based in a therapeutic relationship with another ‘safe’ person holding socially constructed power (the healer)” (Meza & Fahoome, 2008, p. 355). If an adolescent, who is emancipating him-/herself from his or her parents, is sharing his feelings and thought with his/her best friend, who is one of the leaders among his peers (socially constructed power), does that make this best friend a healer? The best friend could even be able to “facilitate discovering and naming emotions, and repairing/improving relationships with oneself, others, and one’s higher power”; s/he could also trigger “behavior changes that are healthier, more adaptive, and ameliorate the painful experiences described above”, or enhance “the ability to articulate one’s purpose/ meaning/mission in life” (Meza & Fahoome, 2008, p. 355)[3].

So where exactly is the difference between the healing process and identity development in general? Or is getting closer to finding a more precise answer to the question “Who am I?” generally understood as “healing”? And if so, does healing have to take place in a client- therapist-relationship or can it take place anywhere? The authors seem to agree that these questions are not easy to answer since their instrument is not called the “Healing Scale”, but the “Self-Integration Scale”. It seems as if there are still some theoretical clarifications needed for the variety of concepts alluded to in this paper. This would be worthwhile, since an easily understandable theoretical framework would facilitate interdisciplinary exchange. And this would maybe lead to a broader group of researchers committed to such questions.

References

Bibace, R., Clegg, J.W., & Valsiner, J. (2009). What is in a name? Understanding the implications of participant terminology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science [Online Journal]. Recallable via: http://www.springerlink.com/content/55w702816378m2p0/fulltext.pdf [Access date: January 2009].

Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.

Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy. London: Constable.

Footnotes

[1] Using the term identity is also problematic, because no common definition exists. Nevertheless, we will use the term in reference to the quest of finding an answer to the question “Who am I?”, which we consider to be a lifelong process.

[2] See: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=8171

[3] The authors state that healing leads to the ability to articulate one’s purpose/meaning/mission in life, unrestricted in time. It still needs to be discussed, if a person can undergo several healing processes, which would then question the term “unrestricted in time”. In addition, it should also be elaborated how a person reaches out to facilitate healing in others. Can s/he do that by being a more authentic counterpart once s/he has progressed in becoming whole and connected?

Competing interests:   None declared