insecurity within their own community ,in a context of deeply entrenched structural violence, have a very different experience to those who have been attacked suddenly and violently by another community or grouping. An approach which emphasises individual responses possibly turns attention away from the way in which the social fabric of whole communities is torn apart by conflict and vital relationships and support networks are damaged, and, in some cases, may try to maintain a neutrality which does not fit with deeply divided political contexts where human rights are still being abused. If guided by the identification of PTSD associated symptoms, such an approach also risks overlooking resilience and the ways people are in fact coping and possibly developing as they overcome the effects of what has happenedl,, as well as diminishing both their innate capacity for self-healingli and the importance of different ways in which they continue to carry the painful burden of what has happened ( for example, feelings of bitterness and desire for revenge because of continued injustice, on-going poverty, and dislocation because of displacement or persecution, intergenerational trauma, etc).lii In cultures where individual well-being is profoundly linked to being in good relationship with others, and to their well-being, the importance of interpersonal work within families and communities and of bringing people together to share experiences and draw on their spiritual and cultural traditions to help them face what has happened, is easily overlooked. For an influential account of such a society (in Sri Lanka) see Daniel‘s 1996 contributions to our understanding of ‗the work of culture‘ in response to chronic social conflict and widespread psychological trauma. Crucially, in the face of huge numbers of people affected by political violence, frequently in the poorest parts of the world, a response based on an individualised approach is unsustainable and the expertise needed to deal with severe PTSD symptomology (or other psychiatric disorders) in very scarce supply. There is no quick fix for the suffering resulting from violent conflict and torture, and the effect of importing counsellors/psychologists/mental health practitioners into affected areas for the duration of a project, only for them to leave after a year or two, is potentially extremely destructive liii. A key learning from the last decades of experience across the world is the strong link between psychological well-being and social agencyliv; while outside input and help may be needed during a transition period, it is likely to be counter-productive if local control and initiatives sustainable within communities are not supported and developed. It is also highly questionable whether effective (individual, family and community) approaches to healing can be initiated and sustained in the absence of the end of conflict and new legal and political dispensations. As practitioners identified the problems associated with focusing on PTSD and its diagnosis, new initiatives began to widen their emphasis to include a social dimension with work aimed at healing and reconciliation. A wider array of interventions in post-conflict situations have come under the umbrella of ―psycho-social intervention‖2, some of them still principally trauma-focused, but using group work instead of individual therapy, while others have been almost entirely focused on social initiatives. Critically, the concept of ‗psychosocial intervention‘ is in grave need of theoretical clarification and research evidence. The ―psycho-social‖ umbrella would include, for example, work done in Rwanda and Burundi to help people to come to terms with the genocide and to start the rebuilding of relationships between the different ethnic groups, group work with survivors of violence in South Africa, work on the re-integration into the community of child soldiers in Northern Uganda, and work with survivors of rape in DRC. These programmes are enormously varied in their purpose and scope, often run by small organisations acting on their own and, for a variety of reasons, they have rarely been subject to rigorous evaluation. Writers/practitioners such as Hamber and Wessells have categorised programmes in different ways in order to analyse what they can hope to achieve, and it will be important to draw on these analyses when considering the development and expansion of similar community based initiatives in Zimbabwe. At its best, psychosocial work at community level can promote healing and empowerment through holistic work with individuals, and help to transform communities through recreation of relationships, traditions and networks which hold together the social fabric; empowering and transformative psychosocial work will link naturally with development and peace-building programmes because a holistic approach recognises, for example, the importance to psychological well-being of livelihood and a sense of physical safety. 2 An umbrella term with widely varying meanings and therefore needing rigorous clarification for the Zimbabwean situation.