ABSTRACT
The chapter opens by illustrating the tendency to oversimplify and polarise when people are confronted by phenomena of human pain in the face of adversity, arguing for the importance of adopting a reflective position. This leads to appreciation of the necessity of developing epistemological vigilance and agility in order to avoid impulsive conceptualisation and epistemological acting out. The ‘epistemological cycle’ is introduced and discussed as a useful framework for navigating through the various epistemological traps in conceptualising and acting in relation to such phenomena. Essential in counteracting oversimplification and polarisation is the distinction between confusing complexity and discerning complexity. Seven typical epistemological errors in addressing adversity are presented and examined: (a) confusion between the events and the experience of events; (b) confusion between various overlapping discourses and inappropriate domination of some discourses over others (e.g. legal, psychiatric, spiritual, etc.); (c) pathologising those we want to help; (d) attributing inappropriate causality between three dimensions: severity of adversity, degree of damage inflicted, and amount of help required; (e) pathologising the survivors in order to condemn the perpetrators; (f) confusion between being a ‘victim of circumstances’ and developing a ‘victim identity’; and (g) resorting to what is familiar and oversimplified, in order to explain a complex and painful phenomenon.
