I also wondered whether the students felt connected to the adults when they spoke to them. For example, in talking about the guidance officers in their schools there was the implied suggestion that these adults did not really understand their bereavement and that they also indirectly represented a culture that distanced the students from the counselling approach. Some of the comments about the school counsellors were: like to talk to them people; they understand V.) “I don’t don’t me”. (St. is tell yuh (your) business to the other teachers and them; nothing is A.) “They private” (J. mother get real vex when she realise that the counsellor had talk about what I tell “My her”. (A.Y.) The Interviews with the guidance counsellors revealed that they too found it difficult, both to relate to the adolescent group, and to discuss a topic such as a death: ‘private’ Reverly (NYC): Adolescents feel as if they are the only ones experiencing the grief. They generally like to talk unless a relationship is built between the counsellor don’t and the teenager. They need to feel the from the counsellor, as kids get ‘realness’ vibes that we influence of culture plays a big role in America. How don’t care….The do we really address kids and their culture? We know don’t enough… Joanne (TT): We need more workshops in specific grief counselling a difficult – it’s topic to talk about. I lost a father myself and it is still difficult for me. From the data, it also seems that the patriarchal structure of that is, the disapproval ‘culture’, of outward displays of grief crying, sulking, acting out, in both the family and the school – still exists in Caribbean society. These overt behaviours continue to be penalized by intelligent academe in the schools, who seem to be unable to link or relate these reactive displays by their students, to bereavement and parental death. THEME TWO: Devaluing the grief response
I also wondered whether the students felt connected to the adults when they spoke to them. For example, in talking about the guidance officers in their schools there was the implied suggestion that these adults did not really understand their bereavement and that they also indirectly represented a culture that distanced the students from the counselling approach. Some of the comments about the school counsellors were: “I don’t like to talk to them people; they don’t understand me”. (St. V.) “They is tell yuh (your) business to the other teachers and them; nothing is private” (J. A.) “My mother get real vex when she realise that the counsellor had talk about what I tell her”. (A.Y.) The Interviews with the guidance counsellors revealed that they too found it difficult, both to relate to the adolescent group, and to discuss a ‘private’ topic such as a death: Reverly (NYC): Adolescents feel as if they are the only ones experiencing the grief. They generally don’t like to talk unless a relationship is built between the counsellor and the teenager. They need to feel the ‘realness’ from the counsellor, as kids get vibes that we don’t care….The influence of culture plays a big role in America. How do we really address kids and their culture? We don’t know enough… Joanne (TT): We need more workshops in specific grief counselling – it’s a difficult topic to talk about. I lost a father myself and it is still difficult for me. From the data, it also seems that the patriarchal structure of ‘culture’, that is, the disapproval of outward displays of grief – crying, sulking, acting out, in both the family and the school still exists in Caribbean society. These overt behaviours continue to be penalized by intelligent academe in the schools, who seem to be unable to link or relate these reactive displays by their students, to bereavement and parental death. THEME TWO: Devaluing the grief response