I think I was quite explicit that I am not using the concept of trauma and traumatic injury as a psychiatric “disorder”. Please don’t misrepresent my words.
Iām so sorry to hear about your familyās terrifying experience and the traumatic effects it has had on your lives – the idea that these experiences canāt be talked about is horrific and shocking.
The determination of the Maga/Trump/2025 coalition to make some ideas unthinkable is authoritarianism 101.
I am not surprised to hear that trauma is considered a āwokeā concept – as the concept of trauma frequently draws attention to harms caused by abuses of power – so not a concept that an authoritarian regime would want to support.
I think the concept of traumatic injury – often as the real effects of power on our bodies and minds- can also be liberating and help us to reframe our experiences in terms of wider social forces. But the way it is framed as a ādisorderā in psychiatric discourse can hide these social origins and cover over real causes and prevent healing.
I agree we need to take the effects of adversity very seriously- that they cause deep and lasting effects for the individual and society. And that this understanding can be lost when everything upsetting is called trauma.
However, Iām not sure it is helpful to frame normal responses to adversity as an illness or disorder like OCD, GAD or āclinicalā depression – experiences which are not proven to be medical disorders and diseases – and, evidence is growing, are likely to be just different or more extreme responses to adversity.
Iām confused, it sounds like the authors of the paper are describing complex PTSD which was initially defined by Judith Herman as chronic, compounded, interpersonal trauma. I assumed that was clearly applicable to living through social and political upheaval, war and displacement.
I also am pretty sure that Herman in fact contextualised trauma very firmly in political and social conditions.
Interesting, but not surprising, that the authors identify a tendency to medicalise and decontextualise trauma – I thought by definition this would not be possible.
Great explanations of how trauma is a disruption of the individual-social , not just individual, in the paper.
I wonder if it is, not that the concept of PTS(D) depoliticises trauma, but that the people who use the concept as a diagnosis depoliticise it?
How can we ensure that any concept does not become commodified and individualised in a psychiatric industry that consumes every concept and shapes it to fits its own medical model?
I think I was quite explicit that I am not using the concept of trauma and traumatic injury as a psychiatric “disorder”. Please don’t misrepresent my words.
Report comment
Iām so sorry to hear about your familyās terrifying experience and the traumatic effects it has had on your lives – the idea that these experiences canāt be talked about is horrific and shocking.
The determination of the Maga/Trump/2025 coalition to make some ideas unthinkable is authoritarianism 101.
I am not surprised to hear that trauma is considered a āwokeā concept – as the concept of trauma frequently draws attention to harms caused by abuses of power – so not a concept that an authoritarian regime would want to support.
I think the concept of traumatic injury – often as the real effects of power on our bodies and minds- can also be liberating and help us to reframe our experiences in terms of wider social forces. But the way it is framed as a ādisorderā in psychiatric discourse can hide these social origins and cover over real causes and prevent healing.
I agree we need to take the effects of adversity very seriously- that they cause deep and lasting effects for the individual and society. And that this understanding can be lost when everything upsetting is called trauma.
However, Iām not sure it is helpful to frame normal responses to adversity as an illness or disorder like OCD, GAD or āclinicalā depression – experiences which are not proven to be medical disorders and diseases – and, evidence is growing, are likely to be just different or more extreme responses to adversity.
Report comment
Iām confused, it sounds like the authors of the paper are describing complex PTSD which was initially defined by Judith Herman as chronic, compounded, interpersonal trauma. I assumed that was clearly applicable to living through social and political upheaval, war and displacement.
I also am pretty sure that Herman in fact contextualised trauma very firmly in political and social conditions.
Interesting, but not surprising, that the authors identify a tendency to medicalise and decontextualise trauma – I thought by definition this would not be possible.
Great explanations of how trauma is a disruption of the individual-social , not just individual, in the paper.
I wonder if it is, not that the concept of PTS(D) depoliticises trauma, but that the people who use the concept as a diagnosis depoliticise it?
How can we ensure that any concept does not become commodified and individualised in a psychiatric industry that consumes every concept and shapes it to fits its own medical model?
Report comment