I greatly appreciated your piece in the Atlantic. I don't want to jump into talking about it. Still thinking.
But I'm old enough to have experienced an era when feminists of all stripes confronted our traumas collectively and built movements. The traumas are individual experiences, but we once were better at learning that our individual experiences point to collective understandings and solidarities, to movements! I see you trying to revivify that potential.
I haven’t read the Atlantic essay and stopped reading this one to comment when I read this sentence:
“ What can also undermine a sense of one’s own agency is the idea that one’s trauma should be central to one’s identity, one’s politics, and one’s activism — that it’s not something that happened and is integrated and moved through, but that the event is a definitional and immovable aspect of you. “
My comment is that trauma in the clinical sense of the word is not the same thing as trauma in the popular sense of it, and this results in confusion. People routinely describe experiences as traumatic that are not really traumatic in the clinical sense of the word. We know what they mean. It’s hyperbole. That’s fine. In the sentence I quote, the things JF says don’t necessarily apply to trauma in the clinical sense of the term, which, sadly, can be as life changing and permanently debilitating as some physical injuries. If she’s using the term in the popular sense, then trauma, rather than undermining a person’s sense of agency, can be central to their identity and can inspire their politics and activism.
Jamie, I really like this point that trauma in the clinical sense of the word is different than trauma in the cultural sense, and that's a point I make later. A point I don't make that you raise -- and that I think is really important -- is that trauma can be central to one's identity and inspire activism. I read that and it's like... oh, yes, obviously I should have said that, and didn't mean to argue the opposite. I guess what I am trying to say is something a little more complex, which is that trauma can of course inspire activism, which to me suggests a sense of agency coming out of trauma. What I am not sure is healthy is social movements putting trauma at the center, and believing that movements are the best places to process that trauma, and putting protection from potential trauma (loosely defined) ahead of all else. Does that make sense? Because I think what you write here makes a LOT of sense.
Your piece in the Atlantic and this followup put into words a lot of the thoughts I have had over the past years, both before and during the pandemic. I write about trauma a lot (homelessness, sexual assault, domestic violence are among the topics I write about) and what it does to the brain. At the same time little is known or said about recovery from trauma and building resilience. Deep study of Martin Luther King's nonviolence theory helps to inform some of your points about how building a movement and a beloved community can transform trauma for good. You nailed it when you called out individualism. We lose a lot when we stop thinking about the collective good vs. individual experience.
I always return to MLK's Six Principles and Six Steps. The final step is reconciliation. We must always leave space for reconciliation, and I find that missing from some of the dialogue around trauma. Let's consider adopting MLK's Six Principles and Six Steps as our collective spiritual furniture. King didn't talk about the Empowered Individual; he laid out a plan to achieve Beloved Community. That's where I want to be.
I thought The Atlantic piece was well thought out and well written. Like you, I work in the world of words (and to a lesser degree, numbers). We think (hopefully); then talk, or type. That's pretty much it - thinking, talking, typing. And have made a good living doing those three things. As a white male boomer, I can say with confidence that nothing anyone has ever thought, said or wrote has injured me in any way. I recognize the privilege behind that sentiment. And I recognize that not everyone shares it. But the notion that we should think and say and write about only those ideas and topics with which everyone feels safe seems antithetical to advancing knowledge and understanding. It also feels the exclusive province of those of us who live in the "soft" world of ideas where our greatest risk is repetitive motion syndrome or a bad back from too much time at the computer. I can't help but wonder about what a "trigger warning" might mean in Ukraine or Sudan...or the countless other places where its sticks and stones breaking bones.
I'm glad to see this pop up here, with the additional info cut from the Atlantic piece which I read yesterday and liked a lot. I was going to say "I enjoyed it immensely" but that didn't seem like quite the right description given the subject matter! However, I did appreciate, as usual, the common sense approach you brought to the issue.
"Trauma" is a tough one. I notice that when my kids sometimes talk to me about their interactions with their therapists, they're frequently discussing trauma. A person of my age grew up thinking of trauma as serious bodily injury, violent crime, physical abuse, etc. and while I recognize that definition to be overly limited, I wonder if we don't need a new word to describe those things which have an effect on us but fall short of - well, *trauma.*
Dealing with those things in therapy is also an entirely different thing than trying to cope with them in a public forum or even in everyday, non-public personal interaction. As a blind friend of mine once said, "The world isn't going to pad its corners for me." A little resilience - I liked your analogy to strength training - can be a big help as we try to negotiate a world of rough edges.
Agree. Also society has encouraged this by catastrophizing childhood, ie danger lurks everywhere and all childhood activities need to supervised by adults. I think that is why many parents don’t see hours on the phone as that problematic because their adolescents are at least home and safe. Combine this with decrease in community and extended family ties and you have many adolescents and young adults unable to deal constructively with their fears and worries.
I really appreciated your points about the importance of agency — I had come to this thinking in terms of the DBT dialectic of “radically accepting” reality as it is now without wishful thinking (e.g. not denying a traumatic event) *and* working toward a better life nonetheless.
I also wonder how effective/accurate trigger warnings really are in the first place — it feels like there must have been studies on them by now?
The self, the punishing self, the inadequate self....we have thrown away the things that give us succor (other people) in favor of this lonely concept that demands ever greater sacrifices in order to remain distinct and alone. Our devices atomize us for easier manipulation.
I want to read the Atlantic piece, but I'm also not a subscriber and don't want to worry about adding the cancelation date of my trial to Google calendar, but based on this piece and my memories of Feministe circa 2008, I'm sure I agree with you 😄
I greatly appreciated your piece in the Atlantic. I don't want to jump into talking about it. Still thinking.
But I'm old enough to have experienced an era when feminists of all stripes confronted our traumas collectively and built movements. The traumas are individual experiences, but we once were better at learning that our individual experiences point to collective understandings and solidarities, to movements! I see you trying to revivify that potential.
I haven’t read the Atlantic essay and stopped reading this one to comment when I read this sentence:
“ What can also undermine a sense of one’s own agency is the idea that one’s trauma should be central to one’s identity, one’s politics, and one’s activism — that it’s not something that happened and is integrated and moved through, but that the event is a definitional and immovable aspect of you. “
My comment is that trauma in the clinical sense of the word is not the same thing as trauma in the popular sense of it, and this results in confusion. People routinely describe experiences as traumatic that are not really traumatic in the clinical sense of the word. We know what they mean. It’s hyperbole. That’s fine. In the sentence I quote, the things JF says don’t necessarily apply to trauma in the clinical sense of the term, which, sadly, can be as life changing and permanently debilitating as some physical injuries. If she’s using the term in the popular sense, then trauma, rather than undermining a person’s sense of agency, can be central to their identity and can inspire their politics and activism.
Jamie, I really like this point that trauma in the clinical sense of the word is different than trauma in the cultural sense, and that's a point I make later. A point I don't make that you raise -- and that I think is really important -- is that trauma can be central to one's identity and inspire activism. I read that and it's like... oh, yes, obviously I should have said that, and didn't mean to argue the opposite. I guess what I am trying to say is something a little more complex, which is that trauma can of course inspire activism, which to me suggests a sense of agency coming out of trauma. What I am not sure is healthy is social movements putting trauma at the center, and believing that movements are the best places to process that trauma, and putting protection from potential trauma (loosely defined) ahead of all else. Does that make sense? Because I think what you write here makes a LOT of sense.
Yes, makes sense, and thanks for writing about this complex issue!
Your piece in the Atlantic and this followup put into words a lot of the thoughts I have had over the past years, both before and during the pandemic. I write about trauma a lot (homelessness, sexual assault, domestic violence are among the topics I write about) and what it does to the brain. At the same time little is known or said about recovery from trauma and building resilience. Deep study of Martin Luther King's nonviolence theory helps to inform some of your points about how building a movement and a beloved community can transform trauma for good. You nailed it when you called out individualism. We lose a lot when we stop thinking about the collective good vs. individual experience.
I always return to MLK's Six Principles and Six Steps. The final step is reconciliation. We must always leave space for reconciliation, and I find that missing from some of the dialogue around trauma. Let's consider adopting MLK's Six Principles and Six Steps as our collective spiritual furniture. King didn't talk about the Empowered Individual; he laid out a plan to achieve Beloved Community. That's where I want to be.
I thought The Atlantic piece was well thought out and well written. Like you, I work in the world of words (and to a lesser degree, numbers). We think (hopefully); then talk, or type. That's pretty much it - thinking, talking, typing. And have made a good living doing those three things. As a white male boomer, I can say with confidence that nothing anyone has ever thought, said or wrote has injured me in any way. I recognize the privilege behind that sentiment. And I recognize that not everyone shares it. But the notion that we should think and say and write about only those ideas and topics with which everyone feels safe seems antithetical to advancing knowledge and understanding. It also feels the exclusive province of those of us who live in the "soft" world of ideas where our greatest risk is repetitive motion syndrome or a bad back from too much time at the computer. I can't help but wonder about what a "trigger warning" might mean in Ukraine or Sudan...or the countless other places where its sticks and stones breaking bones.
I'm glad to see this pop up here, with the additional info cut from the Atlantic piece which I read yesterday and liked a lot. I was going to say "I enjoyed it immensely" but that didn't seem like quite the right description given the subject matter! However, I did appreciate, as usual, the common sense approach you brought to the issue.
"Trauma" is a tough one. I notice that when my kids sometimes talk to me about their interactions with their therapists, they're frequently discussing trauma. A person of my age grew up thinking of trauma as serious bodily injury, violent crime, physical abuse, etc. and while I recognize that definition to be overly limited, I wonder if we don't need a new word to describe those things which have an effect on us but fall short of - well, *trauma.*
Dealing with those things in therapy is also an entirely different thing than trying to cope with them in a public forum or even in everyday, non-public personal interaction. As a blind friend of mine once said, "The world isn't going to pad its corners for me." A little resilience - I liked your analogy to strength training - can be a big help as we try to negotiate a world of rough edges.
Agree. Also society has encouraged this by catastrophizing childhood, ie danger lurks everywhere and all childhood activities need to supervised by adults. I think that is why many parents don’t see hours on the phone as that problematic because their adolescents are at least home and safe. Combine this with decrease in community and extended family ties and you have many adolescents and young adults unable to deal constructively with their fears and worries.
I agree with you that we progressives need to include more of a focus on resilience in our work. Thank you for making this important argument.
I really appreciated your points about the importance of agency — I had come to this thinking in terms of the DBT dialectic of “radically accepting” reality as it is now without wishful thinking (e.g. not denying a traumatic event) *and* working toward a better life nonetheless.
I also wonder how effective/accurate trigger warnings really are in the first place — it feels like there must have been studies on them by now?
The self, the punishing self, the inadequate self....we have thrown away the things that give us succor (other people) in favor of this lonely concept that demands ever greater sacrifices in order to remain distinct and alone. Our devices atomize us for easier manipulation.
I want to read the Atlantic piece, but I'm also not a subscriber and don't want to worry about adding the cancelation date of my trial to Google calendar, but based on this piece and my memories of Feministe circa 2008, I'm sure I agree with you 😄
I don't subscribe to the Atlantic so it's in effect behind a paywall. I can set up a trial but there is always a catch to those.