The Weaponization of Woundedness: Feminist Scholars Examine Trauma Talk

Once a clinical term used to describe extreme psychological distress, “trauma” has become a common feature of public life. It appears in therapy sessions, social media posts, memoirs, and entertainment. For many, particularly those from historically marginalized groups, this cultural shift has created space for stories that were long ignored. Some scholars, however, are beginning to question how trauma discourse is being used and whether it may sometimes reinforce the very hierarchies it aims to challenge.

In their recent article, Trauma as Cultural Capital: A Critical Feminist Theory of Trauma Discourse, published in Hypatia, feminist academics Lucy Britt and Wilson Hammett suggest that “trauma talk” can sometimes be used to reinforce, rather than resist, existing social inequalities. For those with pre-existing social power, trauma discourse may become a means of amassing cultural capital, deflecting accountability, and reinforcing patriarchal power.

“On one hand, feminist theorists and activists played an important role in ensuring trauma is taken seriously by mental health professions and have been the pioneers of taking the inner lives and household dynamics of women seriously while pushing to legitimate women’s trauma—from the consciousness-raising movement to Black feminism to scholarly discussions of the politics of emotion to battles to recognize women’s traumatic experiences of sexual abuse.
On the other hand, the use of trauma as cultural capital may inadvertently result in trauma talk being used to re-entrench, rather than dismantle, existing structural injustices,” write Britt and Hammett.

The article contributes to a growing body of work examining how psychological language shapes public life. By focusing on the social function of trauma disclosures, the authors highlight the ways therapeutic narratives can both challenge and reinforce existing power structures. Rather than treating trauma as a neutral or universally liberating concept, the analysis situates it within broader patterns of cultural authority, prestige, and inequality. The result is a careful accounting of how certain forms of suffering come to be recognized and rewarded, while others remain overlooked or strategically sidelined.