The book concludes by providing insights into how posttraumatic growth might be facilitated in the socio-political context of Rwanda. At the individual level, this is conventionally achieved in a therapeutic setting. According to Tedeschi and Kilmer (Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36. 3 (2005), 234) discussing positive changes with trauma survivors with an empathic understanding of the individual’s worldview can ‘encourage further development of the cognitive processing of trauma into growth’. It is suggested that such an approach could be incorporated into existing therapy frameworks in Rwanda, taking socio-cultural factors into consideration. Promoting growth at the collective level falls not only to clinicians or trauma practitioners but also to policy makers and non-governmental organisations. Survivors are typically not in positions of political, economic or religious power and thus have relatively little access to the means of ideological production. The book nonetheless points to some examples of platforms where survivors can develop counter ideologies that enable them to collectively pursue agency and communion. In a final discussion, the conclusion reiterates that a new reading of trauma, through posttraumatic growth theory, can enable scholars of trauma to move beyond trauma theory’s Eurocentric prescriptivism and instead recognise the ability of survivors to rebuild their lives after trauma and, in some cases, experience a higher level of psychological or social functioning.