Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lucy M's avatar

Eh, I mean trauma itself doesn't give people agency. Trauma responses tend to overwhelmingly limit agency by overriding / reducing the capacity to actually act thoughtfully or intentionally based on our desires, beliefs, even our honed coded of ethics.

Powerful corporations, political entities, oppressive states, and just individuals with authority, use whatever tools at their disposal to maintain that power. If a trauma narrative is a tool, they'll use it.

But the person / entity who accesses or wields a trauma narrative to maintain power (or control an outcome in a conflict) isn't usually (ever?) the person / entity who has sustained the most trauma. Nor is there decent evidence to suggest that the trauma - or even the trauma narrative - is a *source* of political, economic, or social power or authority.

The source of power is material (access to resources), violence, and social placement at the top of a given hierarchy, usually due to a violent history.

The correlation between the ability to wield a trauma narrative, and the garnering or maintenance of power to assert one's will over others, just isn't causal. If there was no trauma narrative to wield, they would choose a different weapon.

This is more clear when you look at the stronger correlation between the most traumatized people (for example, people who experience the highest incidence of Adverse Childhood Experiences, or ACEs) and their degree of social, economic, and political power as adults. In these cases, the correlation is more trauma --> less power.

Individual agency and social/ political power are distinct, but highly related. For example, if a person's traumatic experiences have altered their sensory perception, energy levels, endurance, clarity of thought (etc), those alternations limit their ability to register to vote and exercise that right. Non-voters, as a group, have less political power, and thus significantly less input on, say, zoning laws or homeless rights. Thus, they have less ability to control outcomes that could make a difference between their being housed or not - the latter being an undeniably traumatic experience (one that limit the body and mind's function even further, creating a "downward spiral" of agency loss).

While that is just one example, looking at the data in aggregate, it becomes clear that more trauma --> less power / autonomy / agency is a more viable general rule.

The incidents wherein more trauma *seems* to grant more power are so outside the normative trend, it's wiser to interrogate those incidences as rhetorical tools to power.

Outliers - in this case, the Israeli govt and occupation forces use of trauma narrative to push their imperialist / political agenda - are not useful case studies to observe the impact of *actual trauma itself* on power dynamics. If anything, the odd, inverse correlation presented here - so opposite the typical direction of correlation- is a clue that political leaders are distorting or manipulating the realities of trauma rhetorically, not representing it accurately.

The distortion means we really cannot / should not apply any reasonable, evidence-based ethical or psychological frameworks we have for navigating trauma in conflict, or accounting for the role of trauma in a given social context, to this specific context. If the reality is being rhetorically distorted (which, it is) any political or social thesis has to address the distortion head on.

Tl;dr - conflating the personal, experiential effect actual trauma (less agency) with the social-political effect of the trauma narrative as rhetorical device (more agency / power) is confusing, and it doesn't really get us closer to either social or personal solutions on either front.

Really this needs to be two different posts, imo. I respect your passion and pov, this post just really confusing by smashing two really different things together under the label "trauma."

Expand full comment
Sarah Swenson LMHC's avatar

Very well written. I share your perspective and recommend Man's Search for Meaning when working with clients with PTSD or cPTSD because Viktor Frankl honors the notion that even with significant trauma, we can still choose how we will respond to it. It is deeply personal.

Expand full comment
34 more comments...

No posts