Participa

Peer (collegial, informal) support, often juxtaposed with the lesser importance or even detrimental influence of formal (organizational, structured) support, emerged as the core component of the experience of support for the participants. This peer support was often described as a backdrop, as opposed to more direct interventions. It often supported by its mere being there, through its availability. There were also more difficult aspects to the experience of peer support described, linked to experiences of feeling overwhelmed or feeling that one’s privacy was being invaded. The definition of who is a peer (us-and-them) was a constant sub-theme in the section, effectively limiting peer support to one’s own group of peers. It is important to note that the depiction of the themes offered here is by no means the whole picture or the only picture that could be made. The participants’ accounts included much heterogeneity, for example Grace’s account of peer support was quite different from the others’ in that she utilized a different version of peers.

Thomas’ (2008) research resonates with many of these findings, not only in the central importance of peer support (she calls it interpersonal support), but also in details such as support being useful by its mere being there: “My analysis found that the mere perception that support was available was enough to buffer against situational stress.” (Thomas, 2008, p247). The importance of peer support was also reflected in McCormack, Joseph and Hagger’s (2009) research. As mentioned in the literature review, the focus on interpersonal or peer support is less evident the further one moves from qualitative research, though the importance of it is still acknowledged in for example Macnair (1995). Peer support is also an essential component of the Antares guidelines (2006), and is

mentioned by Ehrenreich (albeit at the very end, and in a more practical injunction to “Talk to others (co-workers, supervisors) about your experiences and your needs. “ (Ehrenreich, 2002, p29)).

93

It seemed paradoxical to me that the participants’ families were sometimes described as supportive when available from the field via the phone, but that the same family upon homecoming was sometimes seen as not being able to provide support. I wonder if part of the reason for this seeming paradox would be that the participants would hold on to familiarity – home is familiar (hence the people there are peers), and when the participant isn’t home he or she doesn’t realize how different he or she has become. It is only upon confrontation with the difference, only upon coming face to face without the assuaging crackly phone line that alienation sets in (these people can’t relate to me, they are not my peers anymore). This hypothesis is supported by Thomas (2008, p254), as she on one hand explains how “some saw the family of origin as the core social unit providing a sense of belonging, an anchor, connectedness, safety, and a resource during difficult times.” whilst she at the same time acknowledged that “the expected familiarity of historical roles may fail to match the comfort of idealised portraits cherished in the field. There was recognition that even though relationships change over time, disappointment rises when “things are just different”. “(Thomas, 2008, p260).

The centrality of peers in the experience of support can be further elucidated by moving beyond literature specifically dealing with international aid workers. Though general ideas on the mechanisms and importance of social relations can be found in most theories of psychology and sociology, I have chosen to look to existential theories in particular to clarify this area. I find it useful to highlight the existential position on the integrated and continual relational character of our lifeworld here – our internal psychology, bodily state, or indeed meaning making do not exist in separation from our social world, they co-arise (Buber, 1923/2008, Heidegger, 1927/1962, Merleau- Ponty, 1945/1962). This integrated stance allows me to see how the support experienced from peers by the participants is woven into all other areas of their life on mission, and also makes the crucial importance of peers more understandable when other component of life are less available (when the location is alien, mandates and meaning confused et cetera). Van Deurzen speaks of the tension

94

between experiencing support from peers and being overwhelmed or feeling intruded by them: “To live with the paradoxes of proximity and distance, dominance and submission, togetherness and aloneness, belonging and isolation, is a whole world in itself. It requires careful modulation of our experience and a life-long process of learning to get it right.” (van Deurzen, 1997, p117). The sense of intrusion can be further illuminated by its links to Sartre’s concept of how we when we relate dominate the Other in the interest of our project (Sartre, 1943/1966), essentially denying the Other’s own individuality in order to make him or her into a ‘thing’ that supports our own individuality. This domination or objectification can be seen as an intrinsic part of relating, and points towards the less pleasant aspects of being-with-others.

Foreshadowing the more in-depth discussion of Madison’s existential migrant concept below, I would here like to highlight how peers can be defined by who they are rather than by where they are from, hence clarifying the delineation component of the ‘us-and-them’ theme. As will be shown, the participants of this study show many of the traits of existential migrants:

“Steinbock introduces the term ‘homecomrade’ to refer to those others who feel familiar to me, who I feel most at home with, with whom I share important rituals and customs. He or she ‘bears’ the same world as I do. Typically it is assumed that homecomrades share one’s original home place and its sameness, but the term presents an interesting possibility. Although existential migrants have cultural traditions they share with their homeworld, it can be asked, who really is the ‘homecomrade’ of an existential migrant? Based on the participant stories, I would propose that a homecomrade for us is more likely to be another person engaged in existential migration rather than an individual who shares the home rituals and customs.” (Madison, 2010, p162).

95