ASPECT FIVE – THE REASON

– FOR SELECTION OF THE NEW COUNTRY

This chapter presents the fifth aspect of the framework, “the reason” for which the refugee or the immigrant fled or left the homeland, and also the reason the new country was selected. The inner consequences of the reason are considered (first for the refugee, then for the immigrant). An account is given of the similarities and differences between refugees and immigrants in this respect. The ways in which the reason can cause and complicate the difficulties which the individual or the family member is undergoing, and influence the refugee/immigrant situation and the other aspects of the framework are also discussed.

From the accounts provided, to comprehend the world of the refugee and the immigrant, it comes across as essential to know the reason(s) he/she left the homeland, and also the reason the new country was chosen (Allodi and Rojas, 1985; Baker, 1983; Berry and Kim, 1988; Callao, 1973; Eitinger and Grünfeld, 1966; Hathaway, 1991; Jönsson, 1995; Malzberg and Lee, 1956;

Mostwin, 1976; Murphy, 1964; Sluzki, 1979; Weinberg, 1961).

Two highly significant differences between the refugee and the immigrant should be borne in mind in understanding the fifth aspect of the framework, the reason. These are that the refugee is forced to leave the homeland, and may not have selected the asylum country, and cannot return to the homeland. By contrast, the immigrant selects and emigrates to the new country, and can visit and permanently return to the homeland.

The consequences of these two factors within the reason may affect, and/or complicate – on arrival and throughout life in the new country – how the individual and family deal with the refugee/immigrant situation and the aspects conceptualized in the framework. Each family member is affected differently by the reason, and it can cause tension and conflict.

To understand the reason, several questions should be posed: Why did the refugee/immigrant leave the homeland? Was he/she part of a group or did he/she escape or emigrate alone? Why? What were the circumstances leading up to it?

THE REFUGEE

When the reason an individual had to leave his/her homeland is known, the circumstances around which he/she came to the new country should be carefully considered – first, the general situation of the political, religious,

ethnic/racial group the refugee belongs to; and, second, the individual and each family member’s particular reason to flee. The person may not refer to it, but it is necessary for the carer working with him/her to have this knowledge, and even more specific details of the political situation in the country when the patient was there, the current situation, and different religious and political factions.

The refugee individual and family

After establishing what section of the homeland population the refugee/family belongs to, it is then necessary to learn the individual’s and each family member’s particular reason for being forced to flee.

Were they fleeing from religious or political oppression? Were they forced to flee because of violence, torture, imprisonment, loss of possessions, or the disappearance or killing of relatives, friends, or colleagues? Was the country at war? If so, when did the war start? How were they involved?

The casework indicates that it may be important for the following questions to be posed: Did the individual flee alone or with the family or in a group? How did he/she flee? Under what circumstances and conditions? Was it planned? Did it happen quickly or was there enough time to plan? If so, how much time? Could possessions be taken or sent to the country of exile? Did he/she know that he/she was about to flee? Did the other people around know about it? Did the other persons fleeing with him/her know that they would have to flee the homeland?

Some refugees have had time to plan and prepare to flee, others have not. A few may have known for years that sooner or later they must flee the homeland, while others did not realize this. Was the refugee or were any other family members in prison, under torture or in hiding within the country before fleeing? If so, for how long and under what circumstances and conditions? Had the refugee been separated from his/her close family? For how long? In hiding? What were living conditions like during separation and concealment?

In some situations, not all family members are told that they will have to flee until a short time or immediately before departure. This may be to protect them from having information which could be unintentionally disclosed or forced out of them by questioning, physical and mental abuse, or torture. Unfortunately, such lack of knowledge can lead to later inner difficulties.

In refugee families, usually not everyone has been politically active.

The person who is active must flee, and the others must follow whether they want to or not, because of the risk for them if they stayed. Usually there are no alternatives, except to split up the family (if this has not already happened). To lose everything for another person’s sake puts great pressure on relationships between family members in the new country (Eitinger and Grünfeld, 1966; Malzberg and Lee, 1956; Murphy, 1964). If the family members had already been separated from each other in the homeland due to imprisonment or hiding, and were reunited just before fleeing or afterwards in the new country, they must also go through the joyful, but sometimes difficult and painful process of “getting to know each other again”.

Did the refugee and family come directly to the country of exile? If so, how? Under what circumstances and conditions? Was it a fearful and/or traumatic experience? If so, in what ways? If he/she and the family did not come directly to the country of exile, where did they go first? Were they in hiding? Were they staying in the homes of strangers, friends or at a hotel or rooming house? For how long before coming to the country of exile? Were they in a refugee camp? Under what circumstances and conditions? For how long before coming to the country of exile?

Selection of the new country

Why was the new country selected as the country of exile? Was it selected by the refugee? If so, why? If not, who made the choice? Why was the country chosen? If the family came as a unit, were all in agreement over the selection of the country of exile? If not, why not?

THE IMMIGRANT

Some immigrants left their native country for similar reasons to refugees.

If so, the consequences of life in the new country are similar to those described for the refugee. Others are in search of a better life than was possible in the homeland. In past years, the openness of immigration policy has varied from country to country. Usually, it has been restrictive.

However, there has been open immigration between the Scandinavian countries for many years. At the time of writing, the European Union allows open immigration for people coming from member countries, but restricts access to people from outside.

Personal reasons for immigration

A person may come to the new country for personal reasons, i.e. because of a loved one, marriage or search for adventure, something new or the utopia they dream of finding.

Marriage

Some people emigrate because they want to share life with a person native to the new country or an immigrant living there. Marriage between people of different cultures can be difficult and complicated. Most often, people are unaware of how background and homeland environment can affect intimate relationships. Difficulties and conflicts can arise, as in all marriages, but when these are due to background differences, they can lead to deep and often seemingly inexplicable complications. These can be based on differing attitudes to gender roles, to economic and religious values, or to bringing up children and other responsibilities. The spouses’

language differences can create misunderstandings. The spouse who goes through difficulties in the new country may be misunderstood by his/her partner who, being part of the country, has never had to compare his/her own culture with another one. These conflicts lead to tensions and sometimes separation or divorce.

If separation or divorce becomes necessary, the choice of returning to the homeland is available to the immigrant, but can be complicated – especially if he/she has spent many years in the new country. If there are children involved, the choice of return to the homeland for a parent – who goes without the children or with them – must be carefully considered. If the immigrant who has been married to someone from the new country divorces and decides to stay, he/she must refind his/her identity without the partner who – most probably – had been a bridge into the new land.

This can be a difficult process. Identity crises can result. They are even more serious and complicated within the immigrant, who must now find his/her place alone in the new country. This severe “double” identity crisis can be misunderstood by the carer working with the immigrant who is not aware of these conditions.

Marriage between immigrants

After a time in the new country, an immigrant may return to the homeland and meet a person with whom he/she wants to share his/her life. This person then comes to the new country to live with the immigrant who has lived there for some time. They may avoid the difficulty of coming from

different backgrounds. However, the immigrant who has lived in the new country is usually unaware of how he/she may have changed inwardly. In the terms of the framework, the new partners are at different levels of the adaptation cycle. This can be confusing and lead to conflict. The person who has lived in the new country for a while may have difficulty in understanding his/her spouse’s situation. It may be too challenging or painful to see, and relive in, another individual what he/she has already gone through. He/she may try to make light of the spouse’s difficulties in the new country by not taking them seriously. Or he/she may identify with them and live through them once again. Then, they share a mutual unhappiness which becomes destructive of their present life and relationship. The immigrant may feel such compassion for the spouse going through the states of being and the adaptation cycle that he/she helps the spouse too much, thereby making the newly arrived individual overly dependent and unable to get by in the new country without help.

These different situations can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts, even hatred, and finally separation and return to the homeland, with or without the children.

Students

Regulations vary from country to country for foreigners studying in different countries. Despite the fact that students are in another country only for a limited time, they can also experience all the difficulties of the immigrant described above.

Inner consequences of voluntary immigration

What are the psychic consequences for the immigrant and/or the family who have left poverty, hunger, unemployment in search of a better life and finally found it? It might be assumed that this brings a sense of satisfaction. For many immigrants, this can be the case. They have worked hard for what they have built up in the new country and enjoy and accept their lives there. This leads to feeling part of the new country.

However, some immigrants, who have found outer material security in the new country, can never fully convince themselves that they have left their poverty stricken past behind. They may live in economic and material abundance, yet they constantly worry and fear that this standard may change or that they could lose it. Members of this group place great demands on themselves, physically and mentally, often achieve high material standards, but are never truly content. Families of these

immigrants may live materially well but often have inner difficulties. The children may identify with their parents, but place unrealistic demands on themselves and never feel satisfied with themselves or successful enough.

This can finally lead to crisis. Immigrants from this group can feel guilt that they have succeeded in leaving their past impoverishment and have left their family and friends behind in it. Success can lead to self-condemnation and feelings of guilt. The person may try as much as possible to help the people left behind economically, but can feel it is not enough. It can lead to the state of being: guilt. It also affects the immigrant’s family and others. Finally, he/she can hate and condemn him/herself and others in the new country because he/she and they have what others in the homeland do not. The individual can then become bitter, aggressive, or depressed and withdrawn, and isolate him/herself from the very life he/she has built up.

Some immigrants who left poverty in the homeland and now have a higher material standard of living may simply deny the past. Denial of past environment can express itself through repression, refusal to attach significance to the past or complete denial of a poverty-stricken past.

Sometimes, the immigrant can show indifference, lack of tolerance and even dislike and hatred for poor people and countries.

Other immigrants from this group may over-compensate for a poverty-stricken background in the homeland by meeting their needs and desires with an abundance of material possessions. Most often these people never seem satisfied, and either hoard or are overly generous (Cannon, 1977; Deutsch and Won, 1956; Gelfand, 1976).

Cases – reason

The following is an in-depth case concerning a refugee; however, the reason she came to the new country and her difficulties in it are comparable to those of other refugees and immigrants. The case shows how the reason influences current difficulties, and also complicates the refugee/immigrant situation and the aspects. It is treated in some detail because it provides a good illustration of how the components of the framework are utilized in psychotherapy.

Case 9.1

A female refugee, age 34, 6 years in Sweden, student on a university teacher-training course (grade-school teacher in the homeland); divorced, 3 children, 12, 10 and 5 years old. Reason for treatment: mental