Narrative Practices in Restorative Justice

Judit Hajdu
(A publikált cikk linkje: https://www.academia.edu/79505707/Narrative_practices_in_restorative_justice)

“Conflicts ought to be used, not only left in erosion.
And they ought to be used, and become useful,
for those originally involved in the conflict.”

Nils Christie, Conflict as property

“The person is not the problem; the problem is the problem.”

Michael White

I had been practising Narrative therapy for families and couples and doing divorce mediations for a few years when I started working with prisoners and first encountered Restorative practices. I was immediately struck by similarities between Narrative methods and Restorative practices and was sure I would see a great deal of liaison between them. To my surprise, I have encountered few instances of inclination to consider cooperation among Narrative practitioners, and almost none in the field of Restorative justice, victim-offender mediation or family conferencing. As I started my training in Restorative practices, I often felt an urge to include the well-structured scaffoldings of questions and interviews so characteristic of Narrative practices into our exercises, and found they fitted in well even though they were not familiar to my tutors. At the Summer School of the European Forum for Restorative Justice dealing with Restorative Justice & Serious Crimes, I was encouraged by our trainer Vince Mercer, an expert in mediating sexual violence cases, and one of the participants, Catherine O’Connell (lecturer, mediator, conflict coach) to explore the possibilities of utilising a synthesis of Restorative and Narrative practices in criminal cases.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Catherine O’Connell for inviting me to investigate the connection between Narrative and Restorative practices, Vince Mercer for his encouragement that it is indeed something worth exploring and Michael D. Lang for his support and never ending patience helping me along this article, which would never have been possible without the many prisoners and people in need who let me learn about and from their stories.

Introduction

The acceptance and use of Restorative and Narrative practices have been gaining ground over the past few decades, attracting a growing number of disciples. Training schools of both approaches have been established and the principles and methodologies of each method are becoming well-established[1],[2]. In primary and secondary schools, as well as in higher education, the two principles have been usefully blended (Winslade & Kecskemeti, 2016; Winslade & Williams, 2012; Kecskemeti, 2013; Kecskemeti, et al., 2013; Ganem & Duncan, 2017; Walgrave, 2011) and it is my belief that the two practices could gain considerably from a more extensive alliance in other areas, especially criminal justice.

This paper gives a brief summary of Restorative practices and a somewhat more detailed – but by no means comprehensive – description of techniques and principles of Narrative ideas as foundation for a suggested combination of the two approaches.

Narrative Practices

Some history and areas of use

Narrative therapy was developed by David Epston, of New Zealand and Michael White, of Australia in the 1980s. (White & Epston, 1992; Denborough, 2008; Denborough, et al., 2008) Their collaboration rooted in anthropology, family therapy and Eriksonian hypnotherapy and created not only a new approach but a new paradigm in psychotherapy, and ultimately in mediation and collective practices.

Narrative approaches, as will be discussed in more detail later, have always viewed individuals in relation to their social environment, thus collective work with communities evolved fairly soon in the development of Narrative theory and methods. Narrative practitioners work extensively with communities that endure hardship or have experienced trauma and in a close collaboration with them they have designed collective narrative practices that have been used effectively all over the world, for example, among prisoners, refugees, war survivors and other trauma victims (Denborough, 2008; Denborough, et al., 2008).

Besides psychotherapy and collective practices mediation has also been developed in Narrative practices to influence family counselling, divorce mediation and conflict resolution in health and educational settings (Winslade & Monk, 2000).

The Narrative Metaphor

Breaking away from the prevailing psychotherapy practices, instead of assuming an underlying dysfunction that defines the behaviour of people, Narrative therapy is concerned with the meaning making processes; the way people organise events of their lives into stories and the way, in turn, these same stories determine their actions (White & Epston, 1990). “It’s to propose that it is the story or self-narrative that determines which aspects of our lived experience get expressed … It’s to propose that we live by the stories that we have about our lives, that these stories actually shape our lives, constitute our lives, and that they ‘embrace’ our lives. … If we assume that our lives are constituted through narrative, it really is not possible for us to take the position that “one story is as good as another” (White, 1998).

When people come to therapy they are usually not content with their stories. They do not want to continue to live their lives in line with their stories. Their problems are overwhelming, that control their lives. They live problem-saturated stories. The task of the narrative practitioner is to sharpen their ears to alternative stories, events that do not fit the dominant storyline, the ones that had not been strung together into stories and could contradict the self-defining ones. These events are called unique outcomes, actions on the part of the client that can be starting points in weaving alternative stories to live by (White & Epston, 1990). These are the occasions, so often brushed aside as exception not worthy of attention, when e.g. Anger could not drive a father into verbal and physical aggression against his son upon hearing bad news from school, or when Fear could not coerce the son into cheating or running away. These alternative stories are fragile at the beginning and are constantly in danger of being defeated by dominant ones, so every effort should be made to “thicken” the thin stories (Morgan, 2000) by giving minute details of the scene, the smell, the colours and feelings. Telling and re-telling the stories make them sturdier, while writing them down also contributes to a thick storyline.

The aim, however, is not to simply replace the dominant, problem-saturated stories with the desirable alternative ones, but instead to widen the landscape to encourage a rainbow of possible stories in place of the narrow perspective created by the problem. A multi-storied perspective opens space for negotiating a number of possible outcomes that were previously unthinkable.

Deconstructing discourses

White’s philosophy was influenced by feminist authors (Payne, 2006) and by the writings of Michel Foucault (Payne, 2006). He was intrigued by the ethics of power and the way it manifests itself in social discourses, the taken-for-granted truths of institutions, religions, professions, clubs, neighbours and family members, all the strata of our lives from the grandest to the most local.

In any culture or society some stories have more power, more weight, than others. These cultural stories or discourses demarcate the lives and accepted behaviour of citizens, who perceive them as ‘facts’ or ‘reality’ (Freedman & Combs, 2002).

These norms and narratives can be in contradiction. The masculine narrative of real-men-do-all-they-can-for-their-loved-ones can be in serious conflict with society’s demand to respect property. So many men have been incarcerated for taking up crime in order to provide for their families, especially in dire situations like serious health problems. Cultural discourses within smaller communities could also generate personal dilemmas. For example, the strict prison code of NTA (Never Trust Anyone) that even merited an acronym in Hungarian prisons is against the strong desire and need to belong to somebody and have friendships to sustain integrity in hardship. These dilemmas and discrepancies do not belong solely to the world of crime or prison; our lives are full of them.  Consider the traditional religious beliefs versus the demands of a modern woman, or the dilemma between cultural integration and maintaining a homogeneous family unit.

Assisting clients to identify and describe these many dominant narratives (voices) is one of the main tasks of the practitioner. Only by doing so can s/he select the ones worthy of attention in any setting (Winslade & Monk, 2000). Once the discourse becomes evident, it is possible to deconstruct, analyse and reconsider the nature and impact of this narrative.

Deconstructing the dominant social discourses is the first step to liberate oneself from their power. Historically, psychology and especially psychotherapy, have been complicit in maintaining and even strengthening these discourses. Narrative practices question them first by acknowledging their presence and second by purposefully seeking out and reflecting on marginalised or alternative narratives. In practice, it means that practitioners – whatever the setting might be – acknowledge that they cannot be completely neutral in their dealings, that they are influenced by personal and societal discourses, and the client knows more about their own life (White, 1998).

Discourses affect individual lives as well as professional beliefs. It is for instance a strong social narrative of the mediation profession that people are driven by their needs and the clash of these needs result in conflicts. Thus, according to the problem-solving approach in mediation, therapists have to be “neutral” and “impartial” in order to negotiate between these needs (Winslade, et al., 1998). Winslade and Monk, mediators, whose practices are informed by Narrative ideas, (Winslade & Monk, 2000) criticize both the problem-solving approach of mediation practices and the need – not to mention the possibility – of neutrality and impartiality of the practitioners and have developed a new conflict paradigm. They have moved away from the concept of conflicts resulting from an individual’s innate psychological needs towards a notion that conflicts are embedded within differences of social discourses.  According to a social constructionist view, there is no single true version of an event, only different perspectives. People make meaning of the world according to their experiences, which inevitably vary, and these meanings form the stories they tell about any event. These distinct stories, and the meanings given to them, are unique and therefore unavoidably create the potential for conflict (Winslade & Monk, 2000).

This shift in perspective liberates the conflicting parties from their fixation on the problem itself, thus providing the opportunity for understanding the larger social context in which these individuals function and in which the narratives unfold.  The process of deconstructing their respective narratives, aids them in reconsidering how they view themselves and the other (Winslade & Monk, 2000). For example, once a divorced father realises that acting the “traditional head of the family” is not the only way – in fact, might not be the best way – to pass on his values to his son, he can see himself engaging in a meaningful relationship with his child.  As a result, time spent together can become more significant to each of them.  This shift may in turn change his relationship with his ex-partner.

The understanding of and responses to power also differentiates the Narrative approach from traditional mediation.  In the prevailing practices of mediation, power is considered a “finite quantity” (Winslade & Monk, 2000, p. 47). This perspective encourages the practitioner to intervene in order to balance power differences between disputing parties. In narrative mediation, however, power is viewed as a fluid phenomenon that can be addressed in several ways on both large-scale as well as individual levels.

Consequently, the narrative practitioner acknowledges that individuals and disadvantaged groups (those seen as having less power) do in fact have the ability to influence relationships (Winslade & Monk, 2000).

Externalization

Apart from the conflict, the problem – and more importantly its location – has also been reconceptualised by Narrative practitioners. Instead of looking for the roots of problems within the person, they examined the way social problems impose difficulties on people’s lives.  Since the 18^th century the notion of internalised problems has become the norm; we refer to people as bad-tempered, shy, weak, or aggressive as a complete description of their personalities and behaviours. The person becomes an object, a mere container of problems.  These problems are difficult to solve requiring the knowledge and skills of an expert.  The problem-solving process will be long, and the outcome hard to predict (White, 1998).

Narrative therapy, however, rejects the attempt to locate the problem within the person.

Michael White’s most-quoted maxim is “The person is not the problem, the problem is the problem” (White, 1988/9; White & Epston, 1990).  Adhering to this maxim, the therapeutic conversation is conducted in a way that problems get externalised, personified and talked about as if from a distance. Externalizing conversations have a unique language in which problems to be objectified are used in their noun form instead of as adjectives. Narrative practitioners talk about “the Anger” rather than “angry” in a way that personifies the problems and gives them intentions and power of their own. Problems can be talked of as vicious, evil or just mischievous, detached from the disputing parties, almost like creatures that make people’s lives difficult.

Naming the problem is a process that tempers their impact on the people and reduces the intensity of the conflict. In fact, this could be the first agreement in addressing a conflict, bringing a measure of unity without the threat of having to give up their positions. Having established a common name for the disagreement, there is an opportunity to explore the history of it and its effects on the relationship between the parties. Practitioners can ask questions about what the problem/conflict destroys, hinders, makes difficult or even what it makes possible (Winslade & Monk, 2000). Talking, for instance, about Jealousy, as a Monster that destroys intimacy, ruins the best moments, and brings about anger and desperation, makes it easier to talk about its effects without accusation and the consequent defensiveness. Also, Jealousy not only affects the person one is jealous about, but the jealous person as well. It might whisper irrational things into her/his ear or distract the person at work. By inviting Jealousy into the therapy room, it is easier to face it together, help overcome its toxic effect, and see the other person and the relationship without its devastating control.

It should be noted, however, that, externalisation is not merely a technique, it is an attitude, a way of looking at the world.  The aim is to see the problem separate from and not as defining the person. Working with a family with a history of abuse, for instance, the therapist might inquire about the “reign of Aggression”, the “debilitating power of Fear” or the “deceiving nature of Silence”. Conducting the therapeutic conversation with this mindset, parties come to understand the effect a problem might have on others and determine how to confront and resolve the problem (Freeman, et al., 1997).

Let me give you a short excerpt from a family consultation:

Father (about his young adult son, who is in trouble for vandalism): I can understand him. I was like him. It runs in the family. When I was his age I smashed and broke and saw no God no Human. Like an animal. Like a man.

Practitioner: You mean, it was difficult to control your Anger?

F: It was no Anger. It was like a wild beast. But sure, it was difficult to control. It’s in me. I am that beast… Less so now.

P: How is that? How can you control that Wild Beast more these days?

F: Dunno. I suppose I got older, wiser … maybe tired … and suppose, I just can’t. Not with the little one (his grandson) around. I’ve got to look after him. Can’t let him down.

P: So, you think it might be Love or Responsibility that could put the rein on that Wild Beast.

F: Those for sure.

Mother: (turning to her son) I could see no Wild Beast in your eyes.

Son: Maybe you don’t, but I feel it…

The practitioner could have chosen to initiate a conversation about the story/narrative of what it is to be a man because that is part of how the Father understands his son.  Instead, he chose to externalize the idea of Anger. She initiated a name to encourage the christening and carried on with the externalizing language. It struck a chord with the son, who could feel understood, but still responsible. It opened up the possibility of considering the skills and knowledges that could help him control his own Beast. Much later, having externalized the notions of anger, responsibility and tenderness, it was easier to discuss the social expectations (narrative) of masculinity.

Collective Narrative practices

Narrative therapy has also turned away from the practice of isolating people with problems. Recognizing that problems are embedded in the culture, the narrative approach involves members of the relevant communities to support the process. Influenced by social anthropology, especially the works of Barbara Myerhoff (1980), whose observations of “definitional ceremonies” – the way we define ourselves through the stories we tell others and via their reflections – had considerable impact on the identity construction theory of Narrative approaches.

In collective practices, it is paramount “to listen for both individual and collective speech patterns” (Denborough, 2008 p. 23); whenever there is trauma there is always a social issue. In collective practices practitioners always respond to both the individual and the collective issues.  In their view, attending to a greater social problem often plays a considerable part in healing the individual (Denborough, 2008). For instance, in the comment “When I was a kid, I was never much regarded as a human being in my family. I was a girl and fathers of course want boys” it is possible to detect the personal story of the speaker’s role in her family as well as the collective, the social discourse, of ‘boys being more valuable’ than girls. Bringing the collective into focus can be genuinely empowering (Denborough, 2008).

Narrative Practices, although part of a therapy tradition, demonstrate the extraordinary potential of engaging the community—the collective—in addressing an individual problem.  This—the community— is the very place where Restorative Practices take their roots.

Restorative Practices

Some history

The ancient tradition of victims and offenders settling their disputes with help from their community was widespread. Crime was not considered an act against society; these cultures acknowledged that the participants – victims, offenders, their families and their immediate communities – were all affected by the crime and therefore must be involved in restitution. This is not to say that there were no rules to compensate for wrongdoings, but the aim of these rules was to re-claim an atmosphere of peace, wholeness and companionship in the community. Codes of Hammurabi, Roman Law, German tribal laws or the traditions of indigenous people of North America, New Zealand and Australia were all similar in that they were less punitive than restorative (Van Nesse & Strong, 2010).

As kingdoms replaced tribal cultures, rulers took the place of victims; crimes committed against the “crown.”  Punishment was meted out by the ruler, without regard for the victims of the criminal acts.  As well, restitution or fines were paid to the state. The real victims were left out of the process. Although the failures of the system became apparent and prison reformers tried repentance, work treatment, training, psychological and mental treatments of the offenders, the victims were never again thought worthy of including (Van Nesse & Strong, 2010).

It was not until the 1960s and ‘70s that victims’ rights groups began to mobilise. Also around this time prison abolitionists began to give voice to their discontent regarding the system of punishment (Van Nesse & Strong, 2010).

Nils Christie, a Norwegian criminologist, is one of the founders of the resurrection of restorative practices. He considered criminal acts as conflicts and thus unavoidable elements of society.  He argued that these behaviours should be cherished, their solutions should not be monopolised by institutions, but rather be given back to the parties in conflict (Christie, 1977). An idea that is compatible with the perception of conflict as “the almost inevitable by-product of diversity” (Winslade & Monk, 2000, p. 41). Winslade and Monk also want to give back the conflict to the participants by encouraging them to name it, make meaning of it, realize and deconstruct the social discourses giving the conflict its strength.

Christie (1977) called for the de-institutionalising of criminology; not unlike like narrative theorists urging practitioners to step aside as experts and encourage individuals and communities to take responsibility for addressing problems. In the same article, he described his vision of a victim-oriented criminal system that takes its format after neighbourhood courts, a system, where response to crime is decided by those who are most closely affected by it and governed by the values of the community.

Soon research and experiments, especially in north-west Europe and North America, resulted in the introduction of interventions premised on the understanding of “crime as a wound within the community and recognize(s) that justice requires not just accountability but also healing” (Umbreit & Armour, 2011). Restorative Justice as it evolved is not a scheme or a set of techniques but – much the same as Narrative practices – a world view, a perspective on human contact and especially conflict (Umbreit & Armour, 2011). Therefore, it is not surprising that this perspective and the accompanying methods have spread to almost all spheres of life where conflicts are common – schools, work places, neighbourhoods and other small communities.  As a consequence of this widespread adoption, Restorative Justice is a dynamic, and often controversial domain of beliefs and practices trying to find its way between being part of the system of law and justice and a social movement (Walgrave, 2011).

It is beyond the scope of this article to examine the full scope of the influence of Restorative Justice principles and practices, so I would like to concentrate on the areas where they have had an impact on the judiciary.

Restorative Justice programmes

The three principal Restorative Justice initiatives are victim-offender mediation (VOM), (family) conferencing and (peace-making/sentencing) circles.

VOMs are guided face-to-face meetings between victims – and maybe their support persons – and offenders, in a safe setting after thorough preparation by the facilitator. The name is somewhat misleading as the aim of the encounter is not – as is true in most mediation interventions – to come to a consensus acceptable by both parties.  Instead, the process provides an opportunity for reconciliation; with victims gaining confidence over their vulnerability and finding a measure of acceptance and peace, and offenders realising the full effect of their behaviour and accepting responsibility for the impact of their actions. An ideal outcome of VOM is not necessarily compensation or restitution – although agreement on such matters may be part of the process.  For those involved in VOM, the goal involves psychological changes in the victim and the offender in relation to the criminal act. The story of the crime can be re-authored by the participants in order to create a narrative that is coherent and reflects their new perspectives on the events of the crime.

Family conferencing was first introduced in New Zealand to save young offenders from prison and by now it is widely used in several countries. The principal goal of this process is preventing the criminalisation of vulnerable youth by pooling the family’s resources to provide safety net for them. The offender’s extended family, together with other willing community members, are invited to one of the members’ houses to discuss and determine how to share tasks and responsibilities that address the offender’s behaviour. Experts are not part of the conference but can be asked to provide answers to questions from group members to assist the group in making decisions. There are many types of family conferencing.  One for example is where offenders before release, their families and members of the communities to which they will be reintegrated discuss conditions, responsibilities and opportunities with the aim of supporting the integration process.

Circles are facilitated discussions about harm or conflicts concerning a community. They can be held after sentencing to aid reconciliation (peace-making circles) or in place of sentencing (sentencing circles).  In recognition of traditional methods, some judicial decisions in Canada have been transferred to traditional first nation communities (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005).

The four essential values of all Restorative Justice programmes are:

• Inclusion – making sure that all affected parties are included (victims, offenders, their respective families and the larger community);
• Encounter –  a face-to-face meeting of the participants in a secure environment (when and where it is feasible);
• Amends – the offender taking responsibility for harm done and for restitution or compensation; and
• Reintegration – providing an opportunity for those responsible for causing harm to return to the community (Van Nesse & Strong, 2010).

A possible synergy 

Narrative and Restorative Practices share common principles as well as some history:

• importance of stories;
• rejecting the expert position of professionals;
• significance of communities;
• inviting communities and individuals to own their conflicts and stories;
• relying on the wisdom of traditional cultures in problem solving;
• rejecting blaming the individual and searching the broader social landscape for explanation and influence;
• acknowledging the simultaneous existence of contradictory stories and accepting them; and
• seeing conflict as essential, something that can have value.

Restorative Justice aims for justice that entails healing, while Narrative therapy “has the capacity to channel the energy arising from individual troubles and shape it into productive social action” (McLeod, 2006, p. 207). Thus, combining the two movements, that come from two directions and occupy overlapping territories could intensify their effect.

There are two areas where use of a combination of Restorative and Narrative Practices could be beneficial to both approaches.

1)  Interface between Restorative Justice and the Judiciary

Most Restorative Justice programmes take place within the context of the judiciary; thus, it is no surprise that it has been strongly influenced by the values and practices of the legal system. Critics of Restorative Justice argue, that this system, with its black and white categories, and the compartmentalisation of persons into victims and offenders, leaves little room for alternative outcomes apart from apology, disclosure and amends. Because the stories in this system focus exclusively on victimhood and offender responsibility the practitioners’ neutrality and impartiality is necessarily jeopardized (Hanan, 2016). Offenders stories are often labelled “comfort stories” by practitioners, say former prisoner Micaela Booth in a blog of the film Injustice (http://www.injustice-film.com/2018/06/23/michaela-booth-on-victims-and-redemption/) meaning they are formed to make excuses to ameliorate responsibility, while victims’ stories are also often limited to satisfy social beliefs about victimhood, which can lead to re-victimization (Pemberton, GM Aarten, Mulder 2018).

Alan Jenkins (2009), who combines restorative and narrative ideas in his work with men who have abused, might have an answer to this critique. He encourages practitioners to challenge the initial, often one-sided, self-deprecatory or self-important, abusive self-narratives of the offenders and listen for signs of ethical qualities to utilize by using it as openings for a fuller, multi-storied narrative less governed by the often-confining social discourses of masculinity. Jenkins defines ethics as an active striving for how one wants to live one’s life and to relate to others as opposed to the prescriptions of society in the forms of morale (Jenkins, 2006).  He argues, that abusive behaviour is often the result of an over-zealous wish to protect as a real man stipulated by the morale of society (Jenkins, 2009).

The danger of accepting culturally constructed narratives—those deemed consistent with the norms of the legal system—as the only truth about a person, applies to victims’ stories as well. Narratives of offenders and victims are connected by the stories of crime, but the meanings of crime differ considerably for victims, offenders and the legal system.  Complying with norms of criminal justice can result in one-sided storylines that emphasize vulnerability and guilt, leaving little room for self-definition or strength. It is the responsibility of the practitioner to find the unique outcomes that can lead to alternative stories and provide space for therapeutic change (White, 2007). It might not necessarily result in absolution or forgiveness, but it will result in healing, one of the main goals of Restorative Practices.

Whether offenders and victims can share their stories, and when, has to be decided by the practitioner in consultation with all affected parties.

Victim-offender mediation commonly starts with thorough preparation performed in alternating separate meetings with the victim(s) and the offender(s). The aim of the preparatory phase is to build trust with the mediator and the process, decrease anxiety and prepare the participants to see, hear or simply be in the presence of the other (Mercer & Sten Madsen, 2015).

Narrative techniques could be considered in the preparatory phase of the victim-offender mediation.  As part of the narrative process, the participants could discuss and negotiate the meaning of experiences such as pain, loss, and violence.   In the process of deconstructing these terms, the victim and offender can revise the isolating discourses and thereby assert a measure of control over their stories.

In serious criminal cases where, despite the motivation to meet the offender, the victim’s anxiety remains high, practice sessions involving outsider witnesses could precede the actual meeting, as a sort of rehearsal. The audience of other victims, friends or family acting as witnesses, help reassure and give confidence to the victims.  Vince Mercer, long-time VOM practitioner who works with violent and harmful sexual behaviour cases, sees the face-to-face meetings as rituals or rites of passage to reconciliation (Mercer, personal communication). With thorough preparation, there is every possibility that it can turn out to be a life-changing event.

2)  The role of communities in Restorative Justice practice

In Restorative Justice, community members play a variety of roles, including: the active and direct involvement of immediate family members of victims and offenders, concerned community members, such as neighbours in the case of vandalism at peace-making circles, and the dedicated work of volunteers (Rossner & Bruce, 2016).

I argue, that Restorative Justice as a movement as well as practice could benefit largely from the tested and proven methods of collective narrative practices. One of their many advantages is that they rely on the strengths, traditions and cultural norms of the communities themselves.

The underlining principle of collective practices is the importance of telling and re-telling of life-stories—the narratives that create the ever-changing identities of persons. Re-authoring culturally defined stories need audiences, stories need to be told and heard and then they can be profoundly life-changing (White, 2007). The first narrative technique that used audiences to stories are outsider witness practice. They are rooted in the work of American anthropologist Barbara Myerhoff:

Definitional ceremonies deal with the problems of invisibility and marginality; they are strategies that provide opportunities for being seen and in one’s own terms, garnering witnesses to one’s worth, vitality, and being.

(Myerhoff 1982, p.267)

Outsider witness practices build on the power of acknowledgement. The highly-structured ritual is divided into three stages:

1. Telling of the life-story by the person the ceremony is organised for;
2. Reflection to this story by the witnesses – by answering specific questions; and
3. Reflection by the person the ceremony is organised for, on how his/her story influenced the witnesses.

Outsider witnessing is a widely-used technique not just in community work but in therapy or mediation and they could be powerful tools in the hands of restorative practitioners in the aftermath of harm done to the community.

Other collective practices can be utilized such as sharing stories of knowledge and achievements between communities; the Tree of Life technique, that uses the metaphor of the tree to find and build on the roots and strength of communities experiencing hardship; the Collective Timelines to highlight shared sentiments between people of very different background and the power of song-writing and music.

These methods have been developed in a variety of cases and used when crime or incarceration affected the community (Denborough, 2008).

An invitation

After a short description of Narrative and Restorative practices this article listed many similarities of the underlining principles and suggested ways of combining the two practices in certain criminal cases to the benefit of all the stakeholders: victim, offenders and the smaller and larger communities.

Suggestions included Narrative techniques and methodologies to be used within the framework of Restorative Justice. Externalization, spotting unique outcomes to weave alternative stories, re-authoring stories to gain multistoried identities and a great variety of collective narrative practices that could enhance the effectiveness of Restorative Justice. Narrative practitioners on the other hand could venture more in the territory of Restorative practices especially in criminal cases in judicial setting.

A first step towards cooperation could be a greater awareness of the similarities between the two approaches through conference and journal invitations on both sides.

It is my hope that restorative and narrative practitioners consider the ideas of cooperation outlined in this article and put them to the test to either accept them or find other more promising ones to be developed into programs to the benefit of victims, offenders and communities.

 

References

Bradshaw, W. & Roseborough, D. (2005) Restorative justice dialogue:  The Impact of Mediation and Conferencing on Juvenile Recidivism, Federal Probation, 69(2), p. 15–21. Available at: http://ir.stthomas.edu/ssw_pub/24  (Accessed: 15 May 2018)

Christie, N. (1977) Conflicts as property, The British Journal of Criminology, 17(1): 1-15.

Decraemer, K. (2014) Working with (Young) Offenders, Conference notes, Third Europe+ Conference of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, Iasi, Rumania.

Denborough, D. (2008) Collective Narrative Practice – Responding to Individuals, Groups and Communities who have Experienced Trauma, Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.

Denborough, D., J. Freedman, C. White (2008) Strengthening resistance: The use of narrative practices in working with genocide survivors, Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Foundation.

Freedman, J., G. Combs (2002) Narrative therapy with couples … and a whole lot more! Adelaide, S. Aust.: Dulwich Centre Publications.

Freeman, J. C, D. Epston, D. Lobovits (1997) Playful Approaches to Serious Problems: Narrative Therapy with Children and Their Families, New York: W.W. Norton.

Ganem P., D. Duncan (2017) Integrative Restorative Justice Narrative Mediation circle Approach: Students’ Perspective of their MSW Program Experience, Available at: https://csus-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.3/189850/GanemDuncanRJNMcThesis.pdf?sequence=1

Jenkins, A. (2006) Shame, Realisation and Restitution: The Ethics of Restorative Practice, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 27(3), p. 153–162.

Jenkins, A. (2009) Becoming Ethical: A Parallel, Political Journey with Men who have Abused, Dorset: Russel House Publishing.

Kecskemeti, M. (2013) Competent Students and Caring teachers: is a Good Pedagogy Always the Best Pedagogy?  Teachers and Curriculum, Vol.13: 93-98.

Kecskemeti, M., K. Kaveney, S. Gray, W. Drewery (2013), A Deconstructive Approach to Class Meetings: Managing Conflict and Building Communities, Narrative and Conflict: Explorations in Theory and Practice 1(1): 30-51.

McLeod, J. (2006) Narrative thinking and the emergence of postpsychological therapies, Narrative Inquiry. 16(2006) pp. 201-210.

Mercer, V., K. Sten Madsen, M. Keenan and E. Zinsstag (2015) Sexual Violence and Restorative Justice: A Practice Guide, Leuven Institute of Criminology. [online] Available at: http://www.euforumrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Doing-Restorative-justice-in-cases-of-sexual-violence_practice-guide_Sept2015-1.pdf (Accessed: 15 May 2018)

Morgan, A. (2000) What is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-read Introduction, Adelaide, S. Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications.

Myerhoff, B (1980) Number Our Days, New York: Simon and Schuster.

Myerhoff, B. (1982) ‘Life history among the elderly: Performance, visibility, and remembering’ in Ruby J. (ed.) A crack in the mirror: Reflexive perspective in anthropology, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Payne, M (2006) Narrative Therapy, Sage Publications.

Pemberton, A., P.GM. Aarten, E. Mulder (2018) Stories as property: Narrative ownership as a key concept in victims’ experiences with criminal justice, Criminology and Criminal Justice [online]. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748895818778320 (Accessed: 15 May 2018)

Rossner, M and Bruce, J. (2016) Community participation in restorative justice: rituals, reintegration, and quasi-professionalization, Victims & Offenders, 11(1) pp. 1-19. [online] Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/65067/ (Accessed: 15 May 2018)

Umbreit, M., M. P. Armour (2011) Restorative Justice Dialogue: An Essential Guide for Research and Practice, New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Van Nesse D.W., K. H. Strong (2010) Restoring Justice: An Introduction to Restorative Justice, Routledge.

Walgrave, L. (2011) Investigating the Potentials of Restorative Justice Practice, Journal of Law & Policy 36 [online]. Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol36/iss1/6/ (Accessed: 15 May 2018)

White, M. (1988/9) The externalizing of the problem and the re-authoring of lives and relationships in White M. (ed.) Selected Papers, Adelaide, Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications.

White, M., D. Epston (1990) Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends, New York: Norton.

White, M., D. Epston (1992) Experience, contradiction, narrative and imagination: Selected papers of David Epston and Michael White 1989-1991, Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.

White, M. (1995) Re-authoring lives, Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.

White, M. (2007) Maps of Narrative Practice, New York: Norton.

Winslade, J., M. Kecskemeti (2016) Better Classroom Relationships, New Zealand: NZCERPRESS.

Winslade, J., G. Monk (2000) Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Winslade, J., M. Williams (2012) Safe and Peaceful Schools: Addressing Conflict and Eliminating Violence, Corwin.

 

Footnotes

[1] Dulwich Centre Adelaide, Australia  – set up by Michael White, one of the founders of Narrative therapy – https://dulwichcentre.com.au/about-dulwich-centre/

Narrative Approaches – an online community, set up by David Epston,  the other founder – http://www.narrativeapproaches.com/about/

The Institute of Narrative Therapy – London, UK –  http://www.theinstituteofnarrativetherapy.com

The Vancouver School for Narrative Therapy – http://therapeuticconversations.com

Evanston Family Therapy Center, Chicago, USA – https://www.narrativetherapychicago.com

[2] European Forum for Restorative Practices – http://www.euforumrj.org

International Institute for Restorative Practices, Bethlehem, USA – https://www.iirp.edu

Restorative Justice 4 Schools, UK – http://www.restorativejustice4schools.co.uk