The wind symbolizes the dynamics of human relations, such as confusion and conflict between the victimized and the people around her/him. Above the RSI there is always a raging gale, making it difficult to stay on any one place on either the inner or outer slope.

​

The wind sometimes takes the form of ‘comparisons of severity’ of injury or of symptoms among the victimized.

From those who are closer to ground zero, one hears moans of suffering, the ‘voiceless voice’ crying for help. But the sufferers on the inner slope, can usually only take care of themselves.

If they try to help the others, they might slip, lose their balance and fall toward the inner sea.

Thus they pretend not to hear the voices from farther inside. In contrast, some would deny their own suffering by comparing themselves to others who are more severely traumatized.

And others would envy those experiencing less severe injury, and feel it unfair if some who are farther outside gain social recognition and compensation as victims while they do not.

​

Survivors’ guilt with respect to those who could not survive under heavier damage can be defined as a sort of ‘wind’ as this is a highly relational matter.

But bearing in mind that the relationship is with people already gone and in some cases with total strangers, and that its intrapsychic effect is so deep, the guilt might be better considered as a universal reaction to trauma, thus as a sort of ‘gravity.’

​

Strong winds-- ‘transference’ and ‘counter-transference’--would be blowing between victim and supporter.

Transference and counter-transference can of course occur in any daily human relation, but when trauma is involved, these become so intense that it becomes difficult for the relevant parties to sustain a stable relationship.

For instance, the victim often distrusts someone situated on the outer slope. Victims compare themselves, who are without the option of running away, compare themselves to the outsider who can leave whenever s/he pleases.

At the same time they wish that person would approach and rescue them. Such ambivalence sometimes impels the victimized to test the outsider by berating her/him for not having been victimized or for failing to understand enough.

Once deciding to trust someone, victims may idealize and become dependent on the outsider. In this circumstance an action that deviates only slightly from expectation can be taken as a betrayal and further hurt the victimized.

​

On the other hand, a supporter who hears the voices from the inner slope comes closer to the victimized, with curiosity, sympathy, or with a feeling of responsibility.

The more s/he tries to be conscientious, the more s/he is prone to be dragged around by the strong emotions of the victimized, and to lose necessary distance from them.

Consciously or not, a supporter can identify with the victimized, project her/his own unsolved problems or past relationships onto them, or even try to control the victimized in order to counter the supporter’s own feelings of inadequacy.

As the road to recovery of the victimized can be very long, a supporter might want to withdraw from the exhausting relationship with the victimized, and experience ‘compassion fatigue’ and burnout (Figley, 1995; Shaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009).

It has been pointed out that during treatment, abuse victims and their therapists unwittingly replay the roles of victim and perpetrator, victim and rescuer, perpetrator and victim, victim and bystander, and so on (Davies & Frawley, 1994; Gartner, 1999). This point is familiar to me as a trauma therapist.

​

Among supporters, what I will term ‘compassion competition’ may occur. Supporters sometimes psychologically compete to win the position of ‘most understanding person.’

At the same time, splitting can occur within a therapy team that has become divided into two factions -- those sympathetic to and those critical of a victimized person.

​

The wind also comes from bystanders. The suspicious gaze of bystanders may be fixed upon the victimized person, questioning the right of the victimized to speak out, his or her veracity, and whether the victim is improperly seeking to gain compensation by feigning illness.

Supporters are also exposed to this gaze. This can easily lead to a ‘blaming the do-gooder’ discourse, as in accusations that the supporters are agitating or manipulating the victim for the use of their own social movement.

The suspicious gaze can be very painful and unsettling for the victimized or the supporter, especially for those whose social credibility was never before questioned.

​

​

​