The new authority and the continuity principle: An integrative approach to natural disasters, war and trauma

In the coming series of posts, I`ll be focusing on the new authority and the principle of continuity in trauma and disaster.  The common denominator of such situations, over and beyond their extreme stress, is that they involve disruptions in functioning, routines, relationships, and the sense of identity of individuals and families.  People that are visited by massive adversity cannot simply go on living as usual.  Often the disruption is very concrete: The conditions for normal functioning are abolished, as is often the case in war or natural disaster. The functioning capacity can also be deeply affected by psychological factors, for instance in the wake of war trauma or rape.  Interpersonal relations are often affected by loss or separation, as in the case of forced migration, evacuation or death of family members.  In other traumatic experiences interpersonal bonds can be put to extreme tests, for instance in cases of abuse.  Disruptions in the sense of identity are evident, as the victims and their significant others ask themselves: "How could this happen to me?" "How did I let it happen to my child?"  "How can we keep living as a family?" "Who am I, now that I can no longer fulfill my role (e.g., as parent, student, soldier, etc.)?". 

These disruptions provide the rationale for the principle of continuity (Omer, 1991; Omer & Alon, 1994.  The principle states: "In situations of massive trauma and disaster, we should strive to maintain or restore continuities in functioning, interpersonal relationships, and the sense of identity, at the level of the individual, the family, the organization and the community."  The principle of continuity is based on an extensive literature review.  My goal in this review was to define guidelines for helping and protecting individuals, families, schools and communities for terrorist attacks or total war.  This review followed on an earlier one, in which I had examined the literature on battle trauma, which went back to World War I, through World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Yom Kippur War.  Those two reviews were the basis for my definition, characterization and spelling out of the principle of continuity, as well as the many ways in which our usual clinical and management practice often flies in the face of that principle, to the detriment of affected individuals and families.    

The principle of continuity provides a simple and flexible guideline, something like a North in our management and treatment compass, helping us to define and keep our course, as well as spotting deviations and errors.  Obviously, situations of extreme stress require simple and practical guidelines, as they do not allow us the time and the leisure necessary for implementing highly complex psychological models, which even if understood by some professionals, could hardly be conveyed in real time to the affected persons or the many workers, professional or voluntary, that are usually deployed at those difficult times. 

During the years in which I developed the NVR and new authority approach, the principle of continuity was not at the center of my attention.  So much so, that the writings in which I defined my model for parents are not even mentioned.  Actually, I had the feeling that the field of disaster and trauma, to which the principle of continuity was central, was like "the road not taken" in my professional career.  I was very much aware, when I defined that principle, that I could have devoted my whole career to spelling it out in practical detail.  However, I decided to leave that road, in order to focus instead on the issues of parental presence, authority, escalation and non-violent resistance.  It was only at the time of the COVID pandemic and even more so during the terrible events of the recent war that I was brought back to the principle of continuity. 

This time, however, I came back to it with my baggage of experience in helping parents and other caregivers to cope with a variety of problems.  It seemed that I was ripe for unifying those two roads (the one taken and the one not taken) into an integrative model of NVR with the principle of continuity. 

An important trigger in helping me understand how NVR could be implemented in situations of trauma was provided by Peter Jakob's work on the subject (Jakob, 2025). Jakob had been often asked whether NVR could be applied with deeply traumatized parents.  Would they not first require an individual treatment that would allow them to process their deep traumas, before they became able to deal with NVR`s challenging tasks?  Jakob cogently argued and clinically demonstrated that NVR is not only relevant for these parents but can be, in and for itself, a major option for treating PTSD.  Jakob`s work fit my new interest in trauma and disaster like a glove. 

In the coming posts, I will explore the connection between the principle of continuity, NVR and the anchoring function.  I will examine issues in the development of the PTSD literature that point in the direction that Peter Jakob, and now I, are following. I will discuss cases in which the principle of continuity can provide a clear direction and correct mistakes.  I invite you to follow this series and, if you find it meaningful, to direct practitioners, colleagues and affected families to those posts. 

References

Jakob, P. (2025). Non-Violent Resistance in Trauma Focused Practice: A Systemic Approach to Therapy and Social Care.  Routledge.

Omer, H. (1991). Omer, H. Populations in disaster: Roles of an emergency team.  Sihot, 5: 157-170 (In Hebrew).

Omer, H. & Alon, N. (1994)  The principle of continuity: Unifying treatment and management in disaster and trauma.  American Journal of Community Psychology, 22: 273-287