The Myth of Trauma | w4dey

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview of the concept of trauma and its implications

Our collective discourse on trauma, which has burgeoned, seeped, and assimilated its way into the very fabric of our shared understanding, has been the fulcrum of numerous psychoanalytic and psychological and psychiatric excavations. Trauma, a phenomenon as elusive as it is ubiquitous, adorns a thousand masks, inscribes a thousand signatures, and reverberates in the cacophony of a thousand discordant voices. It is as if trauma has chosen to make its indelible mark on our individual and collective psyches, a spectral intruder meandering through the mental and corporeal corridors of our existence.

The term trauma, borrowed from its original context denoting a physical lesion, is co-opted in our present discourse to depict a lesion of the mind – a psychological laceration. Such a wound might be invisible to the naked eye, yet its hidden presence is profoundly palpable. The experience of trauma might be likened to the psyche being penetrated by a barb of distress, its venom gradually permeating our consciousness, altering our worldview and self-perception. This analogy is not strictly metaphorical, as trauma does indeed sculpt its physical impressions onto our cerebral architecture and corporeal responses, reconfiguring neural trails and bodily reactions (Van der Kolk, 2014).

However, trauma resists reduction to a mere amalgamation of symptoms or purely physiological manifestation. It is, fundamentally, an experience – one of deeply personal and subjective significance. Trauma is characterised by an event, or a series of events, that fracture our illusion of safety, and disrupt our conviction in a world that is predictable and just, leaving us in a state of overwhelming helplessness and isolation (Herman, 1997). It is an uninvited encounter with an unbearable reality, one that we struggle to accommodate within our existing cognitive scaffolding, and thus remains lodged within our psyche as a raw, unprocessed wound yet to scar.

Yet, this raw wound–this trauma–is not a silent entity. It converses with us in a language that often eludes our comprehension, not because it utilises words, but because it articulates its presence through symptoms. The voice of trauma resonates through our nightmares and flashbacks, through our heightened anxiety and vigilance, through our numbness and dissociation, and through our somatic complaints and behavioural deviations (Van der Kolk, 2014). However, this voice, as it articulates itself through the language of metaphor and symbol, of the body and emotion, of repetition and enactment, is often as challenging to hear as it is to interpret.

Yet, if we are attentive, if we listen carefully and patiently to this voice, we can begin to discern the story it is trying to tell us–a story of terror and helplessness, of loss and grief, of betrayal and disillusionment, of shame and guilt. Each traumatic story is unique, for it is shaped by the particular circumstances of the traumatic event, by the individual’s personality and history, and by the cultural and social context in which it occurred. But all traumatic stories share a common theme–they are stories of a world turned upside down, of a life shattered into a thousand pieces, of a self fragmented and alienated from others and from the world.

The implications of trauma are vast and varied. On an individual level, trauma can lead to a range of psychological problems, from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and various forms of self-destructive behaviour. It can also lead to physical health problems, as the chronic stress associated with trauma can disrupt various bodily systems and increase the risk of conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders (Van der Kolk, 2014).

On a relational level, trauma can disrupt our ability to form and maintain relationships, as the trust and intimacy that are the foundation of human connection are often severely damaged by traumatic experiences. Trauma can make us feel isolated and alienated from others, trapped in a world of pain and fear that others cannot comprehend. It can make us feel as though we are living in a different world, separated by an invisible but impenetrable wall from those who have not experienced what we have (Herman, 1997).

On a societal level, trauma can lead to a host of social problems, from violence and crime to poverty and inequality. Trauma is not distributed evenly across society but is often concentrated in certain groups – those who are marginalised, disadvantaged, or oppressed. The prevalence of trauma in these groups is not a coincidence but a reflection of systemic injustices and structural violence (Bloom, 2013).

The implications of trauma also extend to our understanding of human nature and the human condition. Trauma confronts us with the darker side of our existence, with the capacity of human beings to inflict pain and suffering on each other, with the vulnerability and fragility of our bodies and minds, and with the limits of our control and predictability. It forces us to grapple with existential questions about the meaning and purpose of life, about the nature of good and evil, and about the possibility of growth and transformation in the face of adversity (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

However, the implications of trauma are not only negative. Trauma can also serve as a catalyst for growth and transformation, a theme that has been explored in the literature on post-traumatic growth (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). This does not mean that trauma is in any way desirable or beneficial – it remains a deeply painful and damaging experience. But it does suggest that human beings have a remarkable capacity to adapt and evolve in the face of adversity, to find meaning and purpose in suffering, and to use their traumatic experiences as a springboard for personal and social change.

Thus, the concept of trauma, while rooted in individual suffering and adversity, has broader implications for our understanding of human nature, society, and the world. It is a concept that challenges us to rethink our assumptions about the world and ourselves, to confront our vulnerabilities and limitations, and to develop a more compassionate and nuanced understanding of the human condition (Van der Kolk, 2014).

The concept of trauma, then, is not merely a diagnostic category or a clinical phenomenon. It is a lens through which we can examine the human condition in all its complexity and diversity, its darkness and its light, its suffering, and its resilience. It is a concept that bridges the personal and the collective, the psychological and the social, the biological and the cultural. It is a concept that reminds us of our shared vulnerability, our shared suffering, and our shared capacity for growth and transformation. It is a concept that invites us to listen to the voices of trauma, to bear witness to their stories, and to join them in their journey towards healing and wholeness.

1.2 Introduction to the ‘Myth of Trauma’ – questioning and challenging traditional understandings of trauma 

In a world where trauma is increasingly recognised as a pervasive and significant aspect of human existence, it becomes vital to interrogate the conventional understandings and established paradigms of trauma that have been presented to us. The prevailing discourse on trauma, whilst undeniably enlightening, has been predominantly shaped by the medical model, which tends to classify traumatic experiences into neatly packaged diagnostic categories (Van der Kolk, 2014). This approach, while undoubtedly valuable in many respects, may inadvertently reduce the vast and varied landscape of human suffering to a set of symptoms and criteria, potentially obscuring the deeper, more intricate layers of the traumatic experience.

Derek Summerfield’s (1999) thought-provoking paper, A critique of seven assumptions behind psychological trauma programmes in war-affected areas, provides a critical framework that asks seven challenging questions of the prevailing assumptions in connection with the trauma myth:

• The first assumption involves the universality of the concept of trauma. Summerfield criticises the assumption that the impact of traumatic events is universally similar across different cultures and societies, arguing that this perspective disregards the importance of cultural, societal, and individual interpretations of traumatic experiences (please see below section 3.1.1).
• The second assumption is that trauma invariably induces illness, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Summerfield challenges this notion by highlighting the variability in individual responses to trauma and the potential for resilience and growth alongside the possibility of distress and disorder (please see below sections 2.1 & 2.2).
• Third, Summerfield deconstructs the assumption that the severity of distress is proportionate to the severity of the traumatic event. He underscores the myriad of factors that can influence an individual’s response to trauma beyond the event’s objective severity (please see below sections 4.1 & 4.2).
• The fourth assumption scrutinised is the belief that the Western biomedical model of trauma is universally applicable. Summerfield points out that this model may not be congruent with non-Western cultural beliefs and understandings of distress and healing (please see below sections 3.2 & 4.2).
• The fifth assumption concerns the necessity and efficacy of therapeutic interventions following trauma. Summerfield proposes that spontaneous natural recovery processes can often be sufficient, and therapeutic interventions may not always be beneficial or necessary (please see below sections 3.1.2, 4.1, 4.2, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, & 6.1.3).
• The sixth assumption is that without therapeutic interventions, individuals are at risk of developing long-term trauma symptoms. Summerfield disputes this, highlighting the capacity for natural resilience and recovery (please see below sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, & 6.1.3).
• Seventh, Summerfield challenges the assumption that public testimony and re-visiting of traumatic experiences is inherently therapeutic. He argues that this process can sometimes be re-traumatising rather than healing (please see below section 6.1.3).

It is with this contextual frame in mind that we now venture to further question and challenge the traditional understandings of trauma, with the aim of uncovering a more nuanced, multifaceted, and perhaps compassionate perspective on the human condition. To embark on such an exploration necessitates a willingness to confront the often uncomfortable and disquieting nature of trauma, as well as the courage to push beyond the confines of established thought, embracing the fuller complexities and paradoxes that are intrinsic to the traumatic experience.

One of the central aspects of traditional understandings of trauma is the emphasis on its pathological nature. Trauma is typically conceptualised as a disorder, an aberration from the norm, a deviation from the expected trajectory of human development and functioning (Van der Kolk, 2014). While it is certainly true that trauma can lead to significant distress and impairment, this pathological framework may inadvertently contribute to the stigmatisation and marginalisation of those who have experienced trauma, perpetuating a sense of alienation and isolation.

An alternative perspective on trauma, one that challenges the pathological paradigm, is to consider it as a fundamentally human experience, an inevitable and inescapable aspect of our existence in a complex and often unpredictable world (Herman, 1997). This is not to trivialise the suffering and pain that are inherent to the traumatic experience but rather to recognise that trauma is an intrinsic part of the human condition, a testament to our vulnerability and interconnectedness. In this light, trauma becomes not an aberration but a reflection of the very essence of our humanity, a reminder of the fragility and resilience that define us as human beings.

Another aspect of traditional understandings of trauma that warrants questioning is the emphasis on the individual nature of the traumatic experience. The prevailing discourse on trauma tends to focus on the personal, subjective dimensions of suffering, often neglecting the broader social, cultural, and historical contexts that shape and inform the traumatic experience (Bloom, 2013). This individualistic perspective, while offering valuable insights into the intricacies of personal suffering, may inadvertently obscure the systemic and structural forces that contribute to the prevalence and perpetuation of trauma.

A more comprehensive understanding of trauma requires a recognition of the intricate interplay between the personal and the collective, the individual and the societal, the psychological and the social. This necessitates an exploration of the myriad ways in which trauma is embedded within the fabric of our societies, manifesting in various forms of violence, oppression, and marginalisation (Bloom, 2013). It also demands an acknowledgement of the profound impact of cultural and historical factors on the experience of trauma, as well as an appreciation of the resilience and resistance that are often inherent to the traumatic experience.

In challenging the traditional understandings of trauma, it becomes essential to consider the role of language and narrative in shaping our perceptions of suffering. The dominant discourse on trauma is often characterised by a medicalised language, one that speaks in terms of symptoms, diagnoses, and treatments (Van der Kolk, 2014). This language, while undeniably useful in certain contexts, may inadvertently perpetuate a narrow and reductionist understanding of the traumatic experience, one that neglects the richness and diversity of human suffering. The language we use to describe and understand trauma is not merely descriptive but inherently prescriptive, shaping our perceptions and responses to trauma in profound and often unacknowledged ways. By recognising the power of language and narrative, we can begin to challenge the dominant discourse on trauma, creating space for alternative narratives that reflect the complexity and multiplicity of the traumatic experience.

A different approach to language and narrative in trauma can be found in the field of narrative therapy, which emphasises the healing power of storytelling and the importance of co-constructing narratives in therapy (White & Epston, 1990). This approach challenges the conventional, medicalised discourse on trauma by offering a more holistic, person-centred perspective, one that acknowledges the unique lived experiences of individuals and the inherent value of their stories. By prioritising the subjective, embodied experience of trauma, narrative therapy can help to validate the diverse range of human responses to trauma, fostering a sense of agency and empowerment among those who have experienced trauma.

At the heart of this interrogation of traditional understandings of trauma is the concept of resilience, the capacity to adapt and thrive in the face of adversity. The dominant discourse on trauma tends to focus on the debilitating effects of traumatic experiences, often overlooking the remarkable resilience that many individuals display in the face of trauma (Southwick, Bonanno, Masten, Panter-Brick, & Yehuda, 2014). By recognising and honouring this resilience, we can begin to shift the narrative around trauma, moving from a discourse of deficit and dysfunction to one of strength and resilience. This resilience-centred perspective on trauma offers a more balanced and compassionate understanding of the human response to trauma, one that acknowledges both the pain and the potential for growth inherent in the traumatic experience.

Questioning and challenging traditional understandings of trauma allows us to gain a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the multifaceted nature of human suffering. It compels us to move beyond the confines of the medical model towards a more holistic, person-centred, and resilience-focused perspective on trauma. By recognising the power of language and narrative, the interplay between the personal and the collective, and the remarkable capacity for resilience in the face of adversity, we can begin to cultivate a more compassionate and inclusive discourse on trauma. This discourse, while acknowledging the pain and suffering inherent in trauma, also recognises the potential for growth and transformation, celebrating the resilience and strength that are an integral part of the human condition.

2. A Brief Historical Understanding of Trauma

2.1 Evolution of the concept of trauma in psychological literature

The concept of trauma, as it currently stands in the psychological literature, is an evolving and contested construct, one that reflects the shifting socio-cultural and scientific landscapes of its time (Herman, 1997). Like the proverbial palimpsest, the understanding of trauma has been overwritten and revised numerous times, each iteration leaving its distinct imprint on the corpus of knowledge that we now associate with trauma.

The early psychoanalytic tradition, spearheaded by the likes of Freud and Janet, was among the first to acknowledge the psychological repercussions of traumatic experiences (Freud, 1895; Janet, 1901). For Freud, trauma was seen as an overwhelming experience that disrupted the normal functioning of the psyche, leading to symptoms such as hysteria and neurosis (Freud, 1920). However, Freud’s understanding of trauma was paradoxically progressive and regressive, as he simultaneously recognised the reality of traumatic experiences and negated it by suggesting that these experiences were often imagined or fantasised (see Masson, 1984).

Throughout the twentieth century, the understanding of trauma underwent a substantial transformation. As the world bore witness to the ravages of the World Wars, the psychological consequences of war and violence on soldiers and civilians alike began to surface with increasing clarity. This led to the recognition of conditions such as shell shock and, subsequently, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (Herman, 1997). PTSD represented a watershed moment in the comprehension of trauma, as it acknowledged the enduring psychological impact of traumatic experiences and legitimised the suffering of trauma survivors. However, the concept of PTSD also bore certain limitations, as it primarily focused on single-incident traumas and frequently overlooked the diverse and complex manifestations of trauma.

In the early decades of the twentieth century, the psychological effects of trauma were yet to be adequately understood, with many misconceptions prevailing. The horrors of World War I brought to light the psychological toll that soldiers faced, with many returning home exhibiting a range of symptoms that would eventually be termed “shell shock.” These symptoms included anxiety, nightmares, flashbacks, and an inability to function in daily life (Leese, 2002). The term “shell shock” implied that these symptoms were the result of physical damage to the brain caused by the force of exploding shells, a belief that was later debunked as psychological factors were found to play a significant role in the development of these symptoms.

During the interwar years, further research into the psychological effects of trauma continued. The work of Sigmund Freud and his contemporaries, which focused on the impact of early childhood experiences and unconscious processes, laid the groundwork for the development of psychoanalytic theories of trauma (Freud, 1920). These theories posited that traumatic experiences could become repressed in the unconscious mind, only to re-emerge later in life as symptoms or maladaptive behaviours. This idea of the unconscious mind harbouring repressed trauma would continue to shape our understanding of trauma throughout the century.

The aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust led to a renewed interest in the psychological impact of trauma. The sheer scale of the atrocities and suffering experienced by millions of people necessitated a deeper understanding of how individuals could cope with and recover from such experiences. Studies of Holocaust survivors and other war-affected populations revealed a wide range of psychological responses, including the development of what would later be termed “survivor guilt” and complex trauma (Krell, 1993; Herman, 1992). The experiences of World War II and the Holocaust also highlighted the importance of understanding the impact of trauma on entire communities and societies, as well as individuals.

The Vietnam War marked another turning point in the understanding of trauma. As soldiers returned home from the conflict, many exhibited a range of psychological symptoms that mirrored those seen in the aftermath of the World Wars. This time, however, there was a growing awareness of the psychological consequences of war and a willingness to recognise the legitimacy of these symptoms. In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association introduced the diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) (American Psychiatric Association, 1980). PTSD was defined as a psychiatric condition resulting from exposure to a traumatic event involving actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence, and characterised by symptoms such as intrusive memories, avoidance of trauma-related stimuli, negative alterations in cognition and mood, and hyperarousal (American Psychiatric Association, 1980).

The introduction of PTSD as a formal diagnosis represented a significant milestone in the understanding of trauma. It acknowledged the long-lasting psychological impact of traumatic experiences and provided a framework for clinicians to assess and treat trauma survivors. Furthermore, the recognition of PTSD as a legitimate psychiatric condition validated the experiences of trauma survivors and highlighted the need for appropriate care and support. The formalisation of PTSD in the psychiatric nomenclature was not just a medical or scientific evolution, but had profound societal implications. It allowed a new discourse to emerge, giving survivors the language to articulate their experiences and shaping public perceptions and responses to trauma.

However, while the advent of the PTSD diagnosis marked a significant step forward, it was not without its limitations. The diagnostic criteria for PTSD were primarily focused on single-incident traumas – so-called “Type I” traumas – such as accidents, natural disasters, or combat-related events. This focus left a significant gap in the understanding and recognition of “Type II” traumas – repeated or chronic traumas such as child abuse, domestic violence, or torture – and their associated psychological impacts (Terr, 1991).

Moreover, the PTSD diagnosis often overlooked the diverse and complex manifestations of trauma. The diagnostic criteria centred largely on symptoms related to anxiety and fear-based responses to trauma. However, the lived experiences of many trauma survivors encompassed a broader spectrum of emotional, cognitive, and behavioural responses, including depression, dissociation, substance abuse, self-harm, and interpersonal difficulties (Van der Kolk et al., 2005). Furthermore, the PTSD diagnosis did not fully capture the impact of trauma on an individual’s identity, worldview, relationships, and sense of meaning or purpose in life – elements that are central to many survivors’ experiences and that are fundamental to their recovery and growth following trauma (Herman, 1992).

Another limitation of the PTSD diagnosis was its individualistic focus. While this focus was appropriate for understanding the psychological impacts of trauma at the individual level, it often neglected the broader social, cultural, and political contexts in which trauma occurs. Trauma is not just an individual experience; it is deeply embedded in societal structures and cultural practices. The impacts of trauma can ripple outwards, affecting families, communities, and entire societies. Moreover, social and cultural factors can shape how trauma is experienced, expressed, and responded to (Summerfield, 1999).

The twentieth century saw a significant shift in the understanding of trauma, spurred by the horrific experiences of war and violence and the evolving insights of psychological and psychoanalytic research. The recognition of conditions such as shell shock, neurasthenia, and PTSD alike, marked important milestones in acknowledging the enduring psychological impact of traumatic experiences and legitimising the suffering of trauma survivors. However, the concept of PTSD also carried certain limitations, as it primarily focused on single-incident traumas and often overlooked the diverse and complex manifestations of trauma. As we move into the twenty-first century, the challenge remains to broaden our understanding of trauma, to encompass the full complexity and diversity of trauma responses, and to recognise the social and cultural contexts in which trauma is embedded.

In recent years, the concept of trauma has been broadened to include complex trauma, a term that encompasses the psychological effects of prolonged, repeated, and multifaceted traumatic experiences, such as child abuse, domestic violence, and political violence (Courtois, 2004; Herman, 1992). The recognition of complex trauma has highlighted the insufficiency of the original PTSD model in capturing the full spectrum of traumatic experiences and their psychological implications, leading to a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of trauma.

At the same time, the discourse on trauma has been enriched by the recognition of cultural, societal, and political dimensions of trauma, as seen in concepts such as cultural trauma, historical trauma, and intergenerational trauma (Alexander, 2004; Brave Heart, 2003; Kellermann, 2001). These concepts have underscored the collective and contextual aspects of trauma, highlighting the ways in which trauma is shaped by socio-cultural and historical factors and can reverberate across generations.

Further, the understanding of trauma has been informed by advances in neuroscience and psychobiology, which have shed light on the physiological underpinnings of trauma (Van der Kolk, 2014). These insights have lent empirical support to the subjective experiences of trauma survivors, reinforcing the reality and validity of their suffering.

As we continue to grapple with the concept of trauma, it is important to remain cognizant of its evolving and contested nature. The understanding of trauma is not a fixed entity but a dynamic construct that reflects our changing perceptions of human suffering and resilience. It is a construct that is deeply embedded in its socio-cultural and scientific context, and as such, it is subject to ongoing reinterpretation and revision. Thus, by recognising the historical and cultural specificity of our understanding of trauma, we can cultivate a more compassionate and nuanced approach to trauma, one that honours the complexity and diversity of the human experience.

2.2 Influence of societal and cultural factors on the understanding and perception of trauma

The concept of trauma and its ensuing effects on the human psyche has been a subject of perennial interest and inquiry within psychological and psychoanalytic disciplines. Notwithstanding, the ways in which society and culture mould our comprehension of trauma have an equally, if not more significant, bearing on the matter (Summerfield, 1999). To delve into the labyrinthine connections between societal and cultural factors and the perception of trauma, one must first scrutinise the ways in which prevailing beliefs, norms, and values shape both individual and collective experiences.

Summerfield (1999) offers an incisive critique of the assumptions underlying the contemporary understanding of trauma, particularly the notion that traumatic events universally produce specific psychological sequelae. He posits that the generalisability of such findings may be limited, as they often stem from research conducted within Western cultural contexts, thus perpetuating a culturally biased perspective. Furthermore, Summerfield (1999) points out that in many non-Western societies, the interpretation of traumatic experiences may be fundamentally different, with attributions of meaning and causality often rooted in religious or spiritual beliefs. This divergence in understanding calls into question the universality of psychological constructs related to trauma and invites a more nuanced examination of the intricate interplay between culture, society, and the perception of traumatic events.

In Western societies, the prevailing biomedical model of mental health has heavily influenced the conceptualisation of trauma. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) serves as a cornerstone for this approach, delineating specific criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The DSM’s influence in shaping the perception of trauma cannot be understated, as it not only provides a framework for diagnosis and treatment but also implicitly communicates what constitutes “normal” and “abnormal” responses to traumatic events. This categorical approach to understanding trauma, while beneficial in certain contexts, risks pathologising a diverse range of human experiences and emotions, potentially undermining the resilience and adaptability that individuals and communities may exhibit in the face of adversity (Summerfield, 1999).

The role of the media in shaping societal perceptions of trauma is another crucial factor to consider. In an increasingly interconnected and information-saturated world, the media’s portrayal of traumatic events and their aftermath can significantly influence public opinion and discourse. This influence may manifest in various ways, such as promoting narratives of victimhood and vulnerability or, conversely, glorifying resilience and heroism in the face of adversity (McNally & Robinaugh, 2011). In either case, the media can perpetuate certain stereotypes and expectations about the “appropriate” ways to respond to and cope with traumatic events. This, in turn, may foster a culture in which individuals feel pressure to conform to these expectations or risk being perceived as deviant or maladjusted (Summerfield, 1999).

The process of globalisation has also played a significant role in shaping societal and cultural understandings of trauma. As communities around the world become increasingly interconnected, the exchange of ideas, values, and beliefs often leads to the dissemination and adoption of Western concepts of trauma and mental health (Watters, 2010). In some cases, this cross-cultural exchange may facilitate the identification and treatment of trauma-related distress. However, it may also result in the imposition of culturally incongruent models of understanding and intervention, which may ultimately prove ineffective or even harmful (Summerfield, 1999). This underscores the importance of cultural sensitivity and humility when engaging with trauma across diverse contexts. An understanding of trauma that fails to account for societal and cultural contexts risks perpetuating a monolithic, decontextualised view of human suffering and resilience. 

As Goffman (1963) might argue, trauma is a form of stigma where individuals are defined by their perceived deficits rather than their strengths, their deviations rather than their commonalities. Such a perspective risks engendering feelings of alienation and disconnection, and may even serve to exacerbate the very suffering it seeks to alleviate.

At the same time, it’s also imperative to acknowledge the potential benefits of a shared understanding of trauma. Such shared narratives can foster a sense of collective identity and solidarity, providing individuals with a vocabulary to articulate their experiences and a framework within which to make sense of their suffering. Nevertheless, it is crucial that these shared narratives are flexible and inclusive, allowing space for individual and cultural differences to emerge (Herman, 1997).

Moreover, considering the role of societal and cultural factors in shaping perceptions of trauma calls for a re-evaluation of the ways in which trauma-related distress is identified and addressed. Existing models of intervention, often rooted in Western biomedical paradigms, may need to be revised or supplemented with approaches that place greater emphasis on cultural and contextual factors (Kirmayer, Lemelson, & Barad, 2007). This may involve the incorporation of traditional healing practices, the engagement of community resources, and the empowerment of individuals and communities to become active participants in their recovery process (Summerfield, 1999).

Understanding trauma through a socio-cultural lens invites a broader discussion about the societal conditions that contribute to trauma in the first place. It compels us to ask difficult questions about the role of social, economic, and political factors in the creation and perpetuation of traumatic experiences. This might involve the exploration of systemic issues such as poverty, discrimination, and violence and their impacts on individual and collective well-being (Bracken, Giller, & Summerfield, 1995).

The societal and cultural understanding of trauma is an evolving construct, continuously shaped by the interplay of various forces, including the biomedical model, media narratives, and the process of globalisation. However, this complexity necessitates a dynamic, holistic, and culturally sensitive approach to trauma. It mandates us to remain cognizant of the diverse, context-dependent ways in which individuals and communities interpret and respond to traumatic experiences and to strive for interventions and support structures that respect these variances (Summerfield, 1999).

Further, such an understanding encourages us to examine and address the broader societal conditions that contribute to the prevalence of trauma. It prompts us to scrutinise the systemic injustices, such as poverty, discrimination, and violence, that can often serve as precursors to traumatic experiences (Bracken, Giller, & Summerfield, 1995). This perspective, while challenging, offers a more authentic, comprehensive, and ultimately transformative approach to understanding and responding to trauma.

A socio-cultural perspective on trauma serves not only to broaden our understanding of this complex phenomenon but also to inform more effective and culturally congruent approaches to intervention and support. By recognising the myriad ways in which societal and cultural factors shape perceptions and experiences of trauma, we can better respect and respond to the diverse needs of individuals and communities, promoting healing, resilience, and growth in the face of adversity.

3. The Myth of Trauma 

3.1 Examination of prevalent beliefs and assumptions about trauma 

3.1.1 The universality of trauma response

Casting an eye over the landscape of contemporary discourse on trauma, one is struck by the imposing edifice of belief that posits a universality of and for trauma. Rooted deeply within the clinical and academic psyche, this belief holds that the human response to traumatic experiences transcends cultural, societal, and historical boundaries, carving a monolithic trail; that is, trauma is common to all. It is this belief that finds its manifestation in the pages of authoritative volumes such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) from the American Psychiatric Association (2013) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) published by the World Health Organisation (1992).

While these volumes, lauded for their clinical precision, offer a veneer of certainty, they perpetuate the narrative of a universal experience of trauma. This, in turn, can lead to a myopic vision, one that risks overlooking the varied nuances of human suffering. Such a perspective, while comforting in its simplicity, can breed a clinical hubris that overlooks the individuality and uniqueness of human suffering (Bracken, Giller, & Summerfield, 1995).

The universality of trauma, as a belief, stands on the precipice of a vast abyss that engulfs the myriad ways in which societies, communities, and individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to traumatic experiences. It is in acknowledging the influence of these socio-cultural contexts that we can begin to uncover the message beneath that forms the human experience of trauma (Hinton & Lewis-Fernandez, 2010).

To truly comprehend the phenomenon of trauma, one must look beyond the familiar shores of the DSM and the ICD and venture into the uncharted territories of individual and collective experiences. A journey into the realm of culturally specific idioms of distress or the various societal interpretations of trauma can offer a more comprehensive understanding of human suffering (Hinton & Lewis-Fernandez, 2010).

The supposed universality of trauma, while offering an illusion of predictability and uniformity, threatens to obscure the true complexity and richness of the human experience. By embracing a more nuanced and contextually sensitive understanding of trauma, we open the doors to a more authentic, compassionate, and efficacious engagement with human suffering.

In the quest to understand trauma, the wise words of Ludwig Wittgenstein (1922) ring true: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world”. So, as we expand our conceptual language and frameworks around trauma, we also expand our understanding of the world, creating new possibilities for empathy, healing, and growth. In contrast to the universalising models of trauma, we must consider the possibility that the diverse cultures of our world may give rise to equally diverse experiences and interpretations of trauma. Trauma, then, can be seen as a prism, refracting the dark light of distress through the cultural and social lens of the sufferer. The resultant spectrum of experiences and symptoms defies homogenisation and demands a more attentive and sensitive approach (Hinton & Lewis-Fernandez, 2010).

Indeed, the ICD-10, despite its extensive reach, encapsulates only a fraction of the possible human responses to trauma. Its taxonomic structure, with neatly delineated categories, risks offering an oversimplified representation of the human encounter with suffering. While the ICD-10 provides a valuable tool in the clinician’s arsenal, its hegemony must not overshadow the need for a more holistic, person-centred approach to trauma, one that recognises the socio-cultural fabric that enwraps the individual (World Health Organization, 1992).

Echoing these sentiments, Summerfield (1999) contends that the growing tendency to medicalise human distress can undermine the unique and multifaceted responses to trauma. Such medicalisation can lead to an overreliance on diagnostic labels and categories, reinforcing a reductionist perspective and obscuring the broader psychosocial context of trauma.

Moreover, the notion of trauma as a universal experience tends to prioritise certain narratives of suffering while marginalising others. This can result in a narrow and skewed perspective that privileges the ‘individualistic’ Western conception of trauma, often pathologising or overlooking culturally specific responses to distress (Summerfield, 1999).

In considering the universality of trauma, we are confronted with a paradox: the very notion that seeks to foster a shared understanding of human suffering may inadvertently contribute to the alienation and misunderstanding of those who do not fit within its prescribed boundaries. It is thus paramount to navigate this terrain with humility, curiosity, and an unwavering commitment to honour the complexity of human experience.

A belief in the universality of trauma, while offering a semblance of order and predictability, risks oversimplifying the possible subterranean depth of human suffering. By challenging this myth, we can embrace a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of trauma, one that recognises the indelible influence of societal and cultural contexts. Such a perspective holds the promise of fostering more empathetic and effective therapeutic relationships, thereby facilitating genuine healing and growth in the face of trauma.

3.1.2 The inevitable destructiveness of trauma

As we dig deeper into the complex and nuanced universe of trauma, it is tempting to succumb to the belief that trauma invariably yields destruction. Indeed, a cursory examination of trauma’s many faces—its crippling symptoms, its vast and diverse impact on the mind, body, and soul—might persuade us to view trauma as an agent of inevitable ruin. This perspective, while not without basis, may nonetheless obscure an essential aspect of our relationship with trauma: its potential for transformation, growth, and resilience (Bonanno, 2004).

While it is undeniable that trauma frequently engenders profound distress and disruption, the assumption of its inherent destructiveness may be a myopic view. Such a stance risks perpetuating a fatalistic narrative of trauma, engendering a self-fulfilling prophecy of despair and immobilisation. Moreover, it may foster a reductionist understanding of human resilience, underestimating our capacity to adapt, grow, and find meaning even in the face of profound suffering (Bonanno, 2004).

This is not to suggest that the impact of trauma should be minimised or romanticised. On the contrary, the suffering induced by trauma is real, often unspeakable, and demands our full acknowledgement, compassion, and therapeutic intervention. However, it is crucial to remember that the human response to trauma is not uniform; it is as varied as the human condition itself. Trauma, in its cruel paradox, can both shatter and stimulate; it can engender both despair and discovery (Bonanno, 2004).

The notion of trauma’s inevitable destructiveness might be a narrative borrowed from the medical model, wherein disease invariably implies deterioration. However, the psychological realm, in its intricate interplay with human consciousness, societal influences, and cultural contexts, may not lend itself to such linear interpretations. As such, it may be more apt to consider trauma as a severe disruption that triggers a broad spectrum of responses, ranging from debilitating distress to surprising resilience and post-traumatic growth (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

The prevailing view of trauma’s destructiveness also raises questions about our cultural and societal narratives of suffering. Are we, as a society, more inclined to highlight and validate narratives of destruction and despair while overlooking or questioning accounts of resilience and growth? Does our collective consciousness harbour a bias towards the tragic, the dramatic, the catastrophic? These questions are not merely rhetorical; they bear significant implications for our understanding of trauma and our therapeutic interventions (Summerfield, 1999).

Furthermore, the belief in trauma’s inevitable destructiveness may inadvertently contribute to the stigmatisation and alienation of those who do not conform to this narrative. Those who exhibit resilience or growth in the wake of trauma might feel misunderstood, invalidated, or even guilty for not fulfilling societal expectations of trauma victims (Bonanno, 2004).

Insofar as trauma can indeed be devastating, it is essential to challenge the myth of its inevitable destructiveness. By adopting a more nuanced perspective, one that acknowledges the multifaceted human responses to trauma, we can foster a more compassionate and effective approach to trauma care. This approach, in turn, can encourage individuals to engage with their trauma narratives in ways that are empowering, healing, and growth oriented. Indeed, the narrative of trauma, its aftermath and its implications are far more complex and individual than a mere uniformity of destruction. It is a narrative that unfolds in the interplay of personal, social, and cultural contexts, shaped by individual resilience, societal norms, and cultural understandings of suffering and healing. And as we open ourselves to this complexity, we find ourselves not in a landscape of inevitable wreckage but in a terrain of myriad possibilities, each marked by its unique blend of struggle and strength, despair and hope, rupture, and repair.

This perspective does not deny the destructive potential of trauma. It acknowledges the depth of human suffering, the harsh reality of psychological wounds that may take a lifetime to heal. But it also invites us to see beyond the ruins, to recognise the seeds of resilience and growth that may be sown even in the most ravaged soils. It encourages us to honour the strength of the human spirit, to bear witness to the courage of those who, in their struggle with trauma, discover resources of resilience and meaning that may have remained hidden in the absence of adversity (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

By challenging the myth of trauma’s inevitable destructiveness, we do not seek to romanticise suffering or to impose a narrative of growth upon those who are wrestling with their wounds. Instead, we strive to create a space that can accommodate the full spectrum of human responses to trauma, a space that can hold the pain and the power, the despair and the defiance, the fragility, and the fortitude of those who journey through the shadowlands of trauma (Bonanno, 2004).

In this endeavour, we are not merely redefining trauma; we are reimagining our relationship with it. We are inviting a shift from a pathological model, which views trauma as an incurable disease, to a more holistic, humanistic model, which recognises trauma as a life event that can evoke a range of responses, including resilience and growth (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

In the light of this perspective, the trauma myth’s inevitable destructiveness begins to crumble, revealing a landscape of human experience that is as diverse and dynamic as life itself. And in this landscape, we may find not only the shadow of trauma, but also the light of resilience; not only the echo of despair, but also the whisper of hope; not only the mark of destruction, but also the imprint of growth. And perhaps, in this unveiling, we may come to see trauma not as the end of the story but as a chapter in the ongoing narrative of human existence, a narrative marked by its profound capacity for adaptation, transformation, and renewal.

3.2 Critique of the Trauma Myth using empirical evidence and philosophical arguments

In the discourse of trauma, the assumption of inevitable destructiveness and the universality of trauma responses have been the dominant themes, painting a rather monochromatic image of human resilience. However, a critical examination of these beliefs through the lens of empirical evidence and philosophical inquiry reveals a far more nuanced, complex, and colourful patterning of human responses to adversity (Bonanno, 2004; Hinton & Lewis-Fernández, 2010).

First, the belief in the inevitability of trauma’s destructive effects is challenged by empirical studies that illuminate the remarkable capacity of humans to endure, adapt, and even thrive in the aftermath of traumatic events. For instance, Bonanno (2004) presents compelling evidence of resilience as a common and natural response to loss and potential trauma. He notes that a significant proportion of individuals exposed to potentially traumatic events do not develop chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or any psychiatric disorder at all. Instead, they exhibit a stable trajectory of healthy functioning, or resilience, suggesting that human beings are inherently equipped with adaptive capabilities that enable them to navigate through adversity.

Likewise, Bonanno (2004) emphasises the dynamic nature of resilience, highlighting that it does not denote a state of invulnerability or the absence of distress. Rather, resilience is characterised by the ability to maintain relatively stable, healthy levels of psychological and physical functioning, as well as the capacity to generate positive emotions, even in the face of severe stress. This perspective not only challenges the view of trauma as invariably destructive but also shifts the focus from pathology to a more balanced appreciation of the human capacity for resilience and growth.

On the other hand, the belief in the universality of trauma responses is contested by cross-cultural research, which underscores the influence of cultural and societal factors on the perception, expression, and management of trauma. Hinton and Lewis-Fernández (2010), for example, argue that culture shapes every aspect of the trauma response, from the appraisal of traumatic events and the manifestation of distress to the coping strategies and the pathways to recovery. They demonstrate how cultural syndromes and idioms of distress provide culturally specific ways of expressing and communicating distress, thereby challenging the universal applicability of PTSD as a diagnostic category.

Moreover, they elucidate the cultural modulation of trauma-related emotions and sensations, noting that cultural beliefs and practices can modulate the physiological, emotional, and cognitive processes associated with trauma. For instance, the cultural practice of mindfulness meditation has been found to reduce trauma-related ruminative thoughts and physiological arousal, thereby fostering emotional regulation and recovery. This body of work underscores the need for a culturally sensitive approach to understanding and addressing trauma, one that recognises the plurality and diversity of human experiences and responses.

In addition to the empirical critique, these beliefs also invite philosophical reflections on the nature of human suffering and resilience. The myth of trauma’s inevitable destructiveness seems to rest on a deterministic view of human nature, one that underestimates the human capacity for agency, creativity, and transformation. However, a more existential-phenomenological perspective would highlight the possibility of choice, meaning-making, and personal growth, even in the face of adversity. It would draw attention to the human capacity to transcend suffering, to find meaning in chaos, and to reconstruct one’s life narrative in a way that incorporates the traumatic event without being dominated by it (Frankl, 1985; Yalom, 1980).

The belief in the universality of trauma responses, on the other hand, reflects a reductionistic, homogenising tendency that overlooks the uniqueness and complexity of individual and cultural experiences. A more hermeneutic, dialogical approach would emphasise the intersubjective nature of trauma and its manifestations, the dynamic interplay of the personal and the cultural n the trauma narrative, and the transformative potential of empathic, culturally attuned encounters (Fischer, 1985; Orange, 2011).

By acknowledging the subjective and intersubjective dimensions of trauma, such an approach would also challenge the medicalisation and pathologisation of trauma and call for a more humanistic, relational understanding of trauma and recovery. It would highlight the therapeutic value of authentic, compassionate relationships that can provide a safe space for the trauma survivor to share their story, to make sense of their experience, and to reconstruct their sense of self and world (Herman, 1997; Stolorow, 2007).

In this context, it is also worth noting that the critique of the traditional understanding of trauma does not seek to diminish the profound suffering and distress that trauma can inflict. Rather, it seeks to broaden our understanding of trauma, to highlight the diversity and complexity of trauma responses, and to foster a more compassionate, nuanced, and empowering approach to trauma and recovery. By recognising the inherent resilience of human beings, the cultural shaping of trauma responses, and the transformative power of empathic relationships, we can move beyond the myth of trauma’s inevitable destructiveness and the illusion of its universality, towards a more balanced, holistic, and humanistic understanding of trauma.

A serious critique of the prevalent belief about trauma, informed by empirical evidence and philosophical arguments, invites us to reconsider and reframe our understanding of trauma. It calls for a shift from a deterministic, reductionistic perspective that emphasises the destructive and universal nature of trauma towards a more nuanced, complex, and hopeful perspective that acknowledges the diversity and adaptability of human responses to adversity. It encourages us to see trauma not just as a source of suffering and pathology but also as a potential catalyst for resilience, growth, and transformation. And perhaps most importantly, it reminds us of the importance of empathy, cultural sensitivity, and the necessity of relationship in the healing journey of trauma survivors (Hinton & Lewis-Fernández, 2010; Bonanno, 2004).

4. The Role of Individual and Cultural Differences 

4.1 Exploration of how individual factors such as resilience can influence trauma responses

The symphony of human existence is scored with a multitude of variations in experiences, encounters, and responses. Among these variations, the interplay between trauma and resilience holds a singular fascination. Just as trauma resounds as a significant and often dissonant note in the human composition, so too does resilience, the human capacity to adapt and thrive amidst adversity, play a vital counterpoint (Southwick, Bonanno, Masten, Panter-Brick, & Yehuda, 2014).

The exploration of individual factors influencing trauma responses necessitates a foray into the realms of resilience, a concept that has increasingly gained recognition and resonance within the psychological landscape. To embark on this exploration, we must first acknowledge that trauma is not an event, but an intricate tapestry of perception, interpretation, and embodiment that is intertwined with the entirety of a person’s existence, their personal history, their cultural milieu, and their existential world (Van der Kolk, 2014).

Resilience, in its essence, is the capacity to navigate the stormy seas of adversity, to stay afloat amidst the turbulence, and to chart a course towards safe harbours. It is not merely a static trait but a dynamic process, an ongoing journey that involves an interplay of inner strengths, external resources, and contextual factors (Masten, 2001). It is a dance of adaptation, a symphony of survival, a story of growth and transformation amidst adversity.

The interaction between trauma and resilience is complex and multifaceted, weaving together strands of personality, neurobiology, interpersonal relationships, and cultural contexts. Some individuals may display remarkable resilience in the face of trauma, demonstrating a capacity to absorb the impact, to adapt and recover, and even to grow and transform through the traumatic experience. This is not to romanticise trauma or to diminish the profound distress and suffering it can inflict but rather to acknowledge the innate human capacity for resilience, adaptation, and growth (Bonanno, 2004).

Resilience, however, is not a universal outcome of trauma, nor is it a panacea for trauma’s destructive force. It is influenced by a host of individual and contextual factors, including genetic predispositions, early life experiences, cognitive and emotional regulation capacities, social support, cultural beliefs and values, and access to resources and services (Southwick et al., 2014). Furthermore, resilience is not a linear or predictable process but a complex, dynamic, and often non-linear journey that can involve periods of struggle, setback, and growth.

Individual factors such as personality traits, cognitive and emotional regulation capacities, and belief systems can play a significant role in shaping trauma responses and resilience. For instance, traits such as optimism, self-efficacy, and adaptability have been associated with greater resilience and more adaptive trauma responses (Carver, 1998). Cognitive and emotional regulation capacities, such as the ability to understand and manage one’s emotions, to think flexibly and creatively, and to maintain a balanced perspective, can also facilitate resilience and recovery from trauma (Southwick et al., 2014).

Belief systems, including existential and spiritual beliefs, can also influence trauma responses and resilience. For example, beliefs in a just world or in personal growth and transformation can provide a sense of meaning and purpose that can buffer the impact of trauma and facilitate resilience (Park, 2010). Conversely, negative beliefs about the self, the world, and the future can exacerbate the distress and impairment associated with trauma and hinder recovery (Ehlers & Clark, 2000).

Interpersonal relationships, too, play a crucial role in resilience and trauma responses. Supportive, empathic, and secure relationships can provide a safe haven and a secure base that can buffer the impact of trauma and facilitate resilience (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Such relationships can offer emotional support, practical assistance, validation, and companionship, which can help individuals to manage stress, regulate emotions, and make sense of their experiences. They can also foster a sense of belonging, connectedness, and identity, which can contribute to self-esteem, self-worth, and a sense of meaning and purpose (Southwick et al., 2014).

Conversely, dysfunctional, insecure, or abusive relationships can exacerbate the impact of trauma, undermine resilience, and contribute to distress and dysfunction. The lack of supportive relationships can also increase vulnerability to trauma and impair recovery, underscoring the vital role of social support and connection in resilience and trauma responses (Charuvastra & Cloitre, 2008).

Cultural and societal factors, too, can shape trauma responses and resilience. Cultural beliefs and values can influence how individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to trauma, as well as how they seek and receive support (Hinton & Lewis-Fernandez, 2010). They can provide a framework for understanding and making sense of traumatic experiences and a repertoire of coping strategies and resources. They can also shape societal attitudes, norms, and policies regarding trauma, which can influence access to and the quality of support, services, and resources (Summerfield, 1999).

Yet, the cultural context can also constrain and pathologise trauma responses, imposing dominant narratives and norms that can invalidate, silence, or marginalise diverse and non-conforming experiences and expressions of trauma (Bracken, Giller, & Summerfield, 1995). This highlights the importance of culturally sensitive, inclusive, and empowering approaches to trauma and resilience.

The interplay between trauma and resilience is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that is shaped by a host of individual and contextual factors. It underscores the dynamic and diverse nature of human responses to adversity, the profound impact of trauma, and the remarkable capacity for resilience. It also challenges us to question and rethink traditional understandings of trauma and resilience, to embrace complexity and diversity, and to cultivate compassionate, empowering, and inclusive approaches to trauma and resilience.

4.2 Examination of cultural factors and their impact on trauma and its interpretation

The study of trauma is not confined to the individual level; it must also consider the broader social and cultural contexts in which trauma occurs and is interpreted. Cultural factors play a significant role in shaping the experience, expression, and interpretation of trauma, influencing how individuals understand and respond to traumatic events. A comprehensive examination of trauma necessitates an exploration of these cultural factors and their impact on the understanding and interpretation of trauma (Marsella & Christopher, 2004).

Cultural frameworks provide a lens through which individuals make sense of their experiences, including traumatic events. Cultural beliefs, values, norms, and practices shape the interpretation and meaning-making process surrounding trauma, influencing not only how individuals perceive and label traumatic events but also how they express and cope with trauma-related distress (Kirmayer, Lemelson, & Barad, 2007).

One key aspect of cultural influence on trauma is the cultural construction of trauma itself. Different cultures may define and conceptualise trauma in distinct ways, influenced by historical, religious, and social factors. For example, in Western cultures, trauma is often seen as an individual, psychological phenomenon rooted in specific events, such as accidents or violence. In contrast, some indigenous cultures may view trauma as a collective experience interwoven with the collective history and cultural identity of the community (Marsella & Christopher, 2004).

Cultural beliefs and norms also influence the expression and communication of trauma. Cultural idioms of distress and cultural syndromes provide culturally specific ways to express and convey trauma-related distress. These can include somatic complaints, religious or spiritual rituals, possession experiences, or other culturally recognised forms of distress (Hinton & Lewis-Fernández, 2010). Failure to understand and recognise these culturally specific expressions can lead to misdiagnosis or misunderstanding of trauma experiences.

Moreover, cultural values and norms shape the coping strategies and help-seeking behaviours of individuals who have experienced trauma. Cultures may provide various sources of support, including families, religious institutions, community networks, or traditional healers. The availability and acceptance of these resources can significantly impact individuals’ ability to seek help and access appropriate support (Kirmayer et al., 2007).

Cultural factors also influence the social response to trauma. Stigma, discrimination, and cultural taboos surrounding trauma can affect how individuals are perceived and treated within their communities. In some cultures, discussing trauma openly may be discouraged or even forbidden due to cultural beliefs about maintaining social harmony or protecting the honour of the family (Marsella & Christopher, 2004).

The interpretation and understanding of trauma within a cultural context also shape the development of interventions and therapeutic approaches. Culturally sensitive trauma interventions acknowledge and respect cultural beliefs, values, and practices, incorporating them into treatment strategies. This includes adapting therapeutic techniques to align with cultural values, incorporating traditional healing practices, and involving family or community members in the healing process (Hinton & Lewis-Fernández, 2010).

However, it is essential to recognise that cultures are not homogeneous entities, and within any culture, there is a diversity of perspectives, beliefs, and responses to trauma. Subcultures, social classes, gender roles, and individual differences all contribute to the complexity of cultural influences on trauma (Marsella & Christopher, 2004). Therefore, it is crucial to adopt an intersectional and contextual approach that considers the multiplicity of cultural influences and their interactions with other social identities and systems of power.

Researchers and practitioners have emphasised the importance of cultural competence in trauma-informed care. Cultural competence involves an understanding of the cultural factors that shape individuals’ experiences of trauma and their responses to it. It requires ongoing self-reflection, education, and engagement with diverse cultural perspectives to provide appropriate and effective support for individuals from different cultural backgrounds (Hinton & Lewis-Fernández, 2010).

Cultural competence also involves challenging ethnocentric assumptions and biases that may impede a comprehensive understanding of trauma. The acknowledgement of cultural relativism allows for the recognition that trauma experiences and responses are embedded within cultural contexts and should be understood within those specific frameworks (Marsella & Christopher, 2004). By embracing cultural diversity, practitioners and researchers can move away from a one-size-fits-all approach and create more inclusive and effective interventions.

The importance of collaboration and partnerships with individuals and communities affected by trauma cannot be overstated. Engaging in culturally respectful and collaborative practices involves active listening, valuing lived experiences, and promoting shared decision-making. Such partnerships foster a deeper understanding of the cultural nuances surrounding trauma and enable the co-creation of interventions and services that are meaningful and relevant to the specific cultural context (Kirmayer et al., 2007).

In addition to cultural competence, the consideration of broader structural factors is necessary to comprehensively understand the impact of culture on trauma. Structural inequalities, such as racism, discrimination, and socioeconomic disparities, intersect with cultural factors and influence the experience of trauma and access to resources and support (Kirmayer et al., 2007). Addressing these systemic issues requires a holistic and intersectional approach that considers the complex interplay between cultural, social, and political contexts.

By recognising and examining the impact of cultural factors on trauma, we can move towards a more inclusive, culturally sensitive, and effective approach to trauma care and research. This necessitates an ongoing commitment to learning, humility, and reflexivity, as well as the promotion of social justice and equity. By integrating cultural perspectives into trauma frameworks, interventions, and policies, we can create a more comprehensive understanding of trauma that respects and values the diversity of human experiences.

Cultural factors exert a profound influence on the understanding and interpretation of trauma. Cultural beliefs, values, norms, and practices shape individuals’ experiences, expressions, and coping strategies in the aftermath of trauma. The cultural construction of trauma, cultural idioms of distress, help-seeking behaviours, and social responses all contribute to the complexity of trauma within cultural contexts. Acknowledging and incorporating cultural factors into trauma research, interventions, and policies is essential for providing culturally sensitive and effective support to individuals and communities affected by trauma. This requires cultural competence, collaboration, and a critical examination of broader structural factors to ensure equitable and inclusive approaches to trauma care.

5. The Influence of the Trauma Narrative 

5.1 The impact of the dominant trauma narrative on individuals and society

The dominant trauma myth, shaped by cultural, societal, and historical factors, plays a significant role in prototypes our understanding and perception of trauma. It constructs a framework through which we interpret and respond to traumatic experiences. While this narrative has undoubtedly illuminated the profound impact of trauma on individuals and society, it is crucial to critically examine the effect/s of the trauma myth and consider alternative perspectives to foster a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of trauma (Young, 1995).

The dominant trauma narrative often emphasises the experience of victimhood, focusing on the pain, suffering, and helplessness associated with traumatic events. This narrative highlights the vulnerability and powerlessness of trauma survivors, portraying them as passive recipients of trauma’s destructive effects. While it is essential to acknowledge and validate the experiences of trauma survivors, this narrative can inadvertently perpetuate a sense of victimhood and perpetuate a culture of pathology, reinforcing notions of brokenness and perpetual suffering (Young, 1995).

Moreover, the dominant trauma narrative tends to homogenise the experiences of trauma survivors, obscuring the diversity of responses and resilience that exist within individuals and communities. It fails to capture the full spectrum of human responses to trauma, overlooking stories of resilience, growth, and transformation. By focusing primarily on the negative consequences of trauma, the dominant narrative overlooks the potential for post-traumatic growth, personal meaning-making, and the discovery of inner strengths (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

The impact of the dominant trauma myth extends beyond the individual level and influences societal perceptions and responses to trauma. It shapes public discourse, policy decisions, and resource allocation, often perpetuating a cycle of victimisation and perpetuation of trauma. This can lead to a reinforcement of social inequalities and disparities, as certain communities or individuals are disproportionately affected by trauma and lack access to appropriate support and resources (Young, 1995).

The dominant myth also contributes to a culture of fear and vulnerability, fostering a climate in which traumatic events are sensationalised and perceived as imminent threats. This can lead to heightened anxiety, a preoccupation with safety and security, and a narrowing of our collective focus on the negative aspects of life. While it is crucial to acknowledge and address the real impact of trauma, an overemphasis on the negative aspects can hinder societal healing and resilience (Young, 1995).

The dominant trauma myth often overlooks the systemic and structural factors that contribute to the occurrence and perpetuation of trauma. It fails to adequately address the social determinants of trauma, such as poverty, racism, inequality, and violence. By focusing solely on individual experiences and responses, it neglects the broader social, political, and economic contexts that shape the occurrence and impact of traumatic events (Young, 1995).

This narrow focus on individual experiences can inadvertently shift the responsibility for healing solely onto the survivors themselves, placing the burden on them to “recover” within a society that fails to address the underlying causes of trauma. It overlooks the need for systemic changes, social support, and collective healing initiatives to address the root causes and prevent future trauma (Young, 1995).

To move beyond the limitations of the dominant trauma narrative, it is essential to consider alternative perspectives that offer a more holistic and empowering understanding of trauma. This includes acknowledging the diverse responses to trauma, highlighting stories of resilience, post-traumatic growth, and personal meaning-making. It also involves recognising the social, cultural, and structural factors that contribute to trauma and working towards addressing these underlying issues (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

Additionally, embracing a strengths-based approach that emphasises the individual and collective strengths and resources can shift the narrative from one of victimhood to one of empowerment and agency. This approach recognises the inherent resilience and capacity for growth within individuals and communities affected by trauma. It encourages a focus on the resources, coping strategies, and support systems that individuals and communities possess rather than solely focusing on deficits and vulnerabilities (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

An alternative perspective to the dominant trauma narrative is the concept of post-traumatic growth (PTG). PTG acknowledges that trauma can lead to positive psychological changes, personal growth, and a deeper appreciation for life. It highlights the potential for individuals to find meaning, develop new perspectives, and cultivate resilience in the aftermath of trauma (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). By acknowledging the potential for growth and transformation, the PTG framework offers a counterbalance to the prevailing narrative of victimhood and pathology.

Cultural and contextual factors also play a significant role in shaping the impact of the trauma narrative. Different cultures have diverse ways of understanding and responding to trauma, influenced by their values, beliefs, and social norms. It is crucial to consider cultural variations in trauma narratives and to engage in culturally sensitive practices that respect and incorporate diverse cultural perspectives (Marsella & Christopher, 2004).

Moreover, it is essential to recognise the power dynamics inherent in the trauma narrative. The dominant narrative often gives voice and authority to certain individuals or groups while silencing others. It is crucial to challenge these power imbalances and elevate marginalised voices, acknowledging the intersectional aspects of trauma and the unique experiences of individuals from diverse backgrounds (Young, 1995).

Empirical research and qualitative studies have shown that alternative narratives, such as those focusing on resilience, growth, and empowerment, can have a positive impact on individuals’ well-being and their ability to cope with trauma (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004; Luthar et al., 2000). By embracing these alternative narratives, we can foster a more balanced and empowering understanding of trauma that acknowledges the complexity and diversity of human experiences.

The dominant trauma myth has had a significant impact on individuals and society, shaping our understanding and perception of trauma. While it has shed light on the devastating effects of trauma, it has also perpetuated a narrative of victimhood and perpetuated a culture of pathology. The dominant narrative overlooks the diversity of trauma responses, the potential for post-traumatic growth, and the influence of systemic factors on trauma. By exploring alternative narratives, such as post-traumatic growth and strengths-based approaches, we can foster a more nuanced and empowering understanding of trauma. This involves acknowledging the resilience and agency of individuals and communities, considering cultural variations in trauma narratives, challenging power imbalances, and amplifying marginalised voices. In embracing these alternative narratives, we create a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to trauma that promotes healing, growth, and social change.

5.2 Analysis of how the Trauma Myth narrative can perpetuate 

The dominant trauma narratives that pervade our cultural and societal discourse wield immense power in shaping our understanding and interpretation of trauma. These narratives construct a framework through which we make sense of and respond to traumatic experiences. While they serve the essential purpose of raising awareness about the profound impact of trauma, it is crucial to subject these narratives to critical analysis to uncover their potential to perpetuate the myth of trauma. By examining the limitations and biases inherent in dominant trauma narratives, we can develop a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of trauma (Brison, 2002).

One way in which dominant trauma narratives perpetuate the myth of trauma is by presenting a singular, universal narrative that fails to capture the diverse range of traumatic experiences. These narratives often centre on extreme and exceptional forms of trauma, such as war, natural disasters, or violent crimes, while overlooking the more mundane yet equally impactful forms of trauma that individuals may experience in their everyday lives. This narrow focus can lead to the belief that only extraordinary events warrant the label of trauma, effectively discounting the suffering of individuals who have experienced less dramatic forms of trauma (Brison, 2002).

Furthermore, dominant trauma narratives tend to depict trauma as a monolithic, life-altering event that forever defines the individual’s identity and trajectory. This portrayal reinforces the myth that trauma victims are irreparably damaged and fundamentally different from those who have not experienced trauma. It perpetuates the belief that trauma is an insurmountable obstacle, leaving little room for the potential for healing, growth, and resilience (Brison, 2002).

The myth of trauma is further perpetuated by the tendency of dominant narratives to focus primarily on victimhood and suffering. While it is crucial to acknowledge and validate the pain and distress experienced by trauma survivors, an overemphasis on victimhood can inadvertently reinforce a sense of helplessness and perpetuate a culture of passivity and dependency. By perpetuating the victim narrative, these dominant narratives can inadvertently hinder individuals’ agency and resilience, undermining their potential for post-traumatic growth (Young, 1995).

Moreover, the dominant trauma narratives often prioritise the telling and retelling of traumatic stories, perpetuating a cycle of re-traumatisation. While storytelling can be a powerful and healing tool, it is important to recognise that repeatedly reliving traumatic experiences can re-traumatise individuals and hinder their ability to move forward. This focus on recounting the trauma story can reinforce the belief that trauma is a fixed and unchanging part of one’s identity rather than acknowledging the potential for growth and transformation (Brison, 2002).

In addition to perpetuating the myth of trauma at the individual level, dominant trauma narratives can also have broader societal implications. They can reinforce cultural and social stereotypes about trauma victims, perpetuating a narrative of brokenness and perpetuated suffering. This can lead to stigmatisation and marginalisation of trauma survivors, making it more difficult for them to access support, resources, and understanding from their communities (Young, 1995).

The perpetuation of the myth of trauma through dominant narratives can also have implications for policy and resource allocation. When trauma is narrowly defined and portrayed as an exceptional event, there is a risk of underestimating the prevalence and impact of trauma in various contexts, such as domestic violence, systemic oppression, or interpersonal conflicts. This can result in inadequate support systems, limited funding for trauma-related services, and a failure to address the underlying causes of trauma (Brison, 2002).

To challenge the perpetuation of the myth of trauma, it is essential to adopt a more nuanced and inclusive approach to understanding and responding to trauma. This involves broadening the definition of trauma to encompass a wider range of experiences and acknowledging the individual variability in trauma responses. It also necessitates recognising the potential for post-traumatic growth, resilience, and healing, shifting the narrative away from victimhood and toward empowerment and agency.

Alternative trauma narratives that challenge the myth of trauma have emerged in recent years. These narratives seek to promote a more comprehensive and empowering understanding of trauma. They emphasise the potential for growth, resilience, and transformation in the aftermath of traumatic experiences. By highlighting stories of individuals who have found strength and meaning in the face of adversity, these alternative narratives challenge the notion that trauma is solely a source of irreparable damage (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

One such alternative narrative is the concept of post-traumatic growth (PTG). PTG acknowledges that traumatic experiences can lead to positive psychological changes, personal growth, and a renewed sense of purpose and meaning in life. It encompasses psychological, social, and spiritual aspects of growth, including increased appreciation for life, enhanced personal relationships, greater self-confidence, and a deepened sense of personal strength and resilience (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). By embracing the potential for growth and transformation, PTG offers a counterbalance to the prevailing victim narrative and opens up possibilities for individuals to navigate their traumatic experiences in a more constructive and empowering way.

Further, narratives that emphasise resilience and strength challenge the myth of trauma by showcasing the capacity of individuals to overcome adversity and rebuild their lives. These narratives focus on the resources, coping strategies, and support networks that individuals draw upon to navigate their trauma experiences. By highlighting stories of resilience, these narratives provide a more balanced and hopeful perspective, acknowledging that trauma is not an endpoint but a part of a larger journey towards healing and growth (Luthar et al., 2000).

Critically analysing and deconstructing the dominant trauma narratives is crucial for breaking free from the myth of trauma. By questioning the assumptions and biases inherent in these narratives, we can challenge the perpetuation of victimhood and offer alternative narratives that empower individuals and communities affected by trauma. These alternative narratives acknowledge the diversity of trauma experiences, highlight the potential for growth and resilience, and promote a more holistic understanding of trauma that encompasses both the challenges and the opportunities for transformation (Brison, 2002).

The dominant trauma narratives have a profound influence on our understanding and perception of trauma. While they serve the purpose of raising awareness about the impact of traumatic experiences, they can also perpetuate the myth of trauma by presenting a narrow, monolithic, and victim-centred perspective. Challenging this myth requires critically analysing the limitations and biases of dominant trauma narratives and embracing alternative narratives that emphasise post-traumatic growth, resilience, and empowerment. Thus, by broadening our understanding of trauma and amplifying diverse narratives, we can foster a more comprehensive, nuanced, and empowering approach to trauma that respects the agency and potential for growth in those affected by trauma.

6. Rethinking Trauma 

6.1 Alternative perspectives on understanding and dealing with trauma 

6.1.1 The potential for post-traumatic growth (PTG)

Traumatic experiences have the potential to profoundly impact individuals, often leading to significant distress, disruption, and challenges in various aspects of life. While the dominant narrative surrounding trauma tends to focus on the negative consequences and long-term suffering, there is growing recognition of alternative perspectives that offer a more nuanced understanding of trauma and the potential for post-traumatic growth. These perspectives acknowledge the immense resilience and capacity for personal growth that individuals can cultivate in the aftermath of trauma (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

PTG is one such alternative perspective that has gained considerable attention in recent years. PTG refers to positive psychological changes that occur as a result of the struggle with trauma. Rather than viewing trauma as a purely negative and debilitating experience, PTG recognises that individuals can undergo profound personal transformations, develop new perspectives, and experience growth in various domains of life (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

One aspect of PTG is the development of a greater appreciation for life. Trauma often brings individuals face-to-face with the fragility and uncertainty of life, leading them to re-evaluate their priorities and embrace a deeper sense of gratitude for what they have. They may gain a renewed perspective on life’s value and seize opportunities to live more fully and authentically (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

Another dimension of PTG involves improved interpersonal relationships. While trauma can strain relationships and create distance, it can also foster a greater sense of empathy, compassion, and connection with others. Individuals may develop a heightened understanding of human suffering and a desire to support and connect with those who have experienced similar hardships. The shared experience of trauma can create bonds and facilitate deeper, more meaningful relationships (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

Further, PTG encompasses the development of personal strength and resilience. Trauma challenges individuals to tap into their inner resources and confront adversity head-on. Through this process, they may discover previously unrecognised strengths, capabilities, and coping strategies. These newfound inner strengths can provide a solid foundation for navigating future challenges and setbacks (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

Spiritual and existential growth is another significant dimension of PTG. Traumatic experiences can prompt individuals to confront existential questions and explore deeper existential concerns. They may re-evaluate their belief systems, develop a greater sense of purpose and meaning, and experience a spiritual transformation. Trauma can serve as a catalyst for individuals to embark on a journey of self-discovery and seek answers to profound existential questions (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

While PTG offers a valuable framework for understanding the positive changes that can emerge from trauma, it is essential to emphasise that post-traumatic growth is not about denying or minimising the pain and challenges associated with trauma. It is not a linear process or an automatic outcome, and individuals may still grapple with ongoing difficulties and emotional distress. PTG represents a complex and dynamic process that unfolds over time, requiring individual agency and active engagement with the trauma experience (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

The potential for post-traumatic growth does not negate or diminish the need for appropriate support, therapy, and resources for individuals dealing with trauma. It is crucial to recognise that PTG is not a substitute for addressing and healing from trauma-related symptoms and psychological distress. Instead, it offers a complementary perspective that highlights the inherent resilience and transformative potential within individuals who have experienced trauma (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

Beyond PTG, other alternative perspectives on understanding and dealing with trauma focus on resilience, meaning-making, and empowerment. Resilience refers to the capacity to bounce back from adversity and navigate challenges with adaptability and strength. Resilient individuals are able to harness their internal and external resources to cope effectively with traumatic experiences (Masten, 2014). Recognising and fostering resilience can play a crucial role in promoting positive outcomes and facilitating the process of healing and growth after trauma.

Meaning-making is another alternative perspective that emphasises the importance of constructing personal meaning from traumatic experiences. When individuals are able to find a sense of purpose, coherence, and significance in their trauma narratives, it can contribute to their overall well-being and post-traumatic growth (Park, 2010). Meaning-making involves making sense of the traumatic event, integrating it into one’s life story, and finding lessons or insights that can guide personal growth and transformation.

Empowerment-focused approaches to trauma highlight the agency and active participation of individuals in their own recovery and healing process. These approaches emphasise the importance of providing individuals with a sense of control, autonomy, and choice in their journey toward healing. By fostering a sense of empowerment, individuals are more likely to regain a sense of mastery and regain confidence in their ability to navigate life after trauma (Herman, 1992).

In addition to these alternative perspectives, it is crucial to acknowledge the social and cultural context in which trauma occurs. Traumatic experiences are not isolated events but are influenced by broader social, cultural, and systemic factors. Social support, community resources, and culturally sensitive interventions play a vital role in individuals’ ability to recover and grow after trauma (Marsella & Yamada, 2000). Recognising the impact of sociocultural factors allows for a more comprehensive understanding of trauma and informs the development of inclusive and effective support systems.

It is important to note that the potential for post-traumatic growth and the adoption of alternative perspectives on trauma should not undermine the need for trauma-informed care and evidence-based interventions. Understanding and addressing trauma-related symptoms, providing psychological support, and ensuring access to appropriate resources remain critical components of trauma recovery. The goal is to integrate these alternative perspectives within a comprehensive and holistic approach that recognises the multidimensional nature of trauma and fosters healing, resilience, and growth.

Alternative perspectives on trauma, including post-traumatic growth, resilience, meaning-making, and empowerment, offer valuable insights into the transformative potential of traumatic experiences. These perspectives challenge the dominant narrative of trauma as solely negative and debilitating and highlight the capacity of individuals to find strength, meaning, and growth in the aftermath of trauma. By recognising the multidimensional nature of trauma and the interplay between individual, social, and cultural factors, we can develop more comprehensive approaches to understanding and addressing trauma. Integrating these alternative perspectives within trauma-informed care and interventions can foster healing, resilience, and post-traumatic growth, ultimately promoting the well-being and recovery of individuals who have experienced trauma.

6.1.2 The role of meaning-making and narrative reconstruction in healing

Meaning-making and narrative reconstruction play crucial roles in the healing process following traumatic experiences. When individuals are faced with trauma, their sense of identity, worldview, and understanding of the world may be shattered. Meaning-making processes allow individuals to make sense of their experiences, find coherence in their narratives, and reconstruct a sense of meaning and purpose in life (Neimeyer, 2006).

Meaning-making involves the active cognitive and emotional process of interpreting and assigning significance to the traumatic event. It encompasses the search for understanding, the exploration of the personal and existential implications of the trauma, and the integration of the traumatic experience into one’s life story (Park, 2010). By engaging in meaning-making, individuals can transform the chaos and disruption of trauma into a coherent narrative that facilitates healing and growth.

Narrative reconstruction, closely related to meaning-making, involves the intentional reshaping and reinterpretation of one’s personal story in light of the traumatic experience. It entails constructing a new narrative that acknowledges the impact of the trauma while also integrating elements of resilience, growth, and personal transformation. Narrative reconstruction allows individuals to move beyond being passive victims of their trauma and instead become active agents in the construction of their own narratives (Neimeyer, 2006: White & Epston, 1990).

The process of meaning-making and narrative reconstruction can occur through various mechanisms, including the retelling of the trauma story, reflection, and introspection, and engaging in creative and expressive activities such as writing, art, or therapy. Through these processes, individuals are able to explore the emotional and psychological impact of the trauma, identify themes and patterns, and make connections between the traumatic experience and their broader life context (Park, 2010; White & Epston, 1990).

One important aspect of meaning-making and narrative reconstruction is the creation of a coherent story that integrates the trauma within the individual’s broader life narrative. By integrating the trauma into their life story, individuals can regain a sense of continuity and coherence, transforming the traumatic event from a disruptive force to an integral part of their personal growth and development (Neimeyer, 2006). This process allows individuals to reconcile the traumatic experience with their pre-existing beliefs, values, and identity, creating a sense of meaning and purpose in the aftermath of trauma.

Meaning-making and narrative reconstruction also contribute to the emotional processing of trauma. By engaging in the active exploration and expression of their thoughts and emotions related to the trauma, individuals can gain a deeper understanding of their own emotional responses and develop strategies for coping and healing (Park, 2010; White & Epston, 1990). The process of constructing a coherent narrative helps individuals to give voice to their emotions, to integrate the painful aspects of the trauma, and to facilitate emotional regulation and growth.

Moreover, meaning-making, and narrative reconstruction have social dimensions. Sharing one’s story with trusted others, such as in therapy or support groups, can provide validation, support, and new perspectives. Through interpersonal interactions, individuals can receive feedback, gain insights, and develop a shared understanding of their experiences (Neimeyer, 2006). This social dimension of meaning-making and narrative reconstruction contributes to a sense of connection, belonging, and the potential for post-traumatic growth.

The role of meaning-making and narrative reconstruction in healing extends beyond the individual level. It also has broader societal implications. When individuals engage in the process of reconstructing their narratives, they contribute to challenging societal stigma, promoting understanding, and creating a collective narrative that acknowledges the impact of trauma on individuals and communities (Neimeyer, 2006). By sharing their stories, individuals become advocates for change, raising awareness, and reducing the isolation and shame associated with trauma.

It is important to note that the process of meaning-making and narrative reconstruction is not linear or uniform for all individuals. It is a deeply personal and individualized process that unfolds over time. Some individuals may find solace in creating a coherent narrative early on in the healing process, while others may require more time and support to reach a sense of meaning and coherence. Additionally, the process of meaning-making and narrative reconstruction can be complex and challenging, as individuals may encounter obstacles, such as overwhelming emotions, conflicting narratives, or the need to confront painful aspects of the trauma (Park, 2010; White & Epston, 1990). Therefore, it is crucial to provide a supportive and safe environment where individuals can engage in these processes at their own pace and receive guidance from trained professionals.

The therapeutic context plays a significant role in facilitating meaning-making and narrative reconstruction. Therapists can employ various approaches, such as narrative therapy, cognitive-behavioural therapy, or expressive arts therapy, to support individuals in their journey of reconstructing their narratives (Neimeyer, 2006). These therapeutic modalities provide individuals with the opportunity to explore and reshape their stories, challenge unhelpful or negative narratives, and create new meanings and interpretations of their experiences.

Research has shown the positive impact of meaning-making and narrative reconstruction on psychological well-being and post-traumatic growth. Studies have found that individuals who engage in the process of meaning-making following trauma report higher levels of resilience, positive emotions, and life satisfaction (Park, 2010). They also exhibit lower levels of post-traumatic stress symptoms and depression. Engaging in narrative reconstruction has been associated with a greater sense of coherence, identity development, and personal growth (Neimeyer, 2006).

However, it is essential to acknowledge the potential limitations and challenges in the process of meaning-making and narrative reconstruction. Not all individuals may have the resources, support, or opportunities to engage in these processes effectively. Cultural, linguistic, and contextual factors can influence the ways in which individuals construct their narratives and the availability of supportive environments (Marsella & Yamada, 2000). Therefore, it is crucial to adopt a culturally sensitive and inclusive approach that recognizes and respects diverse ways of meaning-making and storytelling.

Meaning-making and narrative reconstruction play crucial roles in the healing process following trauma. These processes enable individuals to make sense of their experiences, construct coherent narratives, and find meaning, purpose, and growth in the aftermath of trauma. By integrating the traumatic event into their life story, individuals can regain a sense of continuity and coherence, transforming trauma from a disruptive force to an opportunity for personal development. Meaning-making and narrative reconstruction are deeply personal and individualised processes that can occur through various mechanisms, such as therapy, creative expression, and interpersonal interactions. They contribute to emotional processing, social connection, and the reshaping of collective narratives surrounding trauma. While these processes can be challenging and complex, research has shown their positive impact on psychological well-being and post-traumatic growth. Adopting a culturally sensitive and inclusive approach is crucial to ensure that all individuals have the opportunity to engage in meaning-making and narrative reconstruction in their healing journey following trauma.

6.1.3 Discussion on the benefits of these perspectives for therapy and recovery

The notions of meaning-making and post-traumatic growth (PTG) bear significant implications for therapeutic interventions and the process of recovery in the aftermath of trauma. These perspectives offer invaluable blueprints for comprehending, assisting, and facilitating the healing trajectories of individuals. By weaving the principles of meaning-making and PTG into therapeutic frameworks, mental health practitioners can augment the efficacy of their interventions and foster resilience, personal growth, and well-being (Neimeyer, 2006; Joseph & Linley, 2006; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

A principal advantage of integrating meaning-making and PTG perspectives into therapeutic practice is the resultant shift from a deficit-centred model towards a strengths-based approach. Traditional trauma-focused therapies frequently prioritise symptom reduction and aim to help individuals revert to their pre-trauma state. Conversely, the perspectives of meaning-making and PTG acknowledge and construct upon the inherent strengths, resources, and capacities of those who have encountered trauma (Joseph & Linley, 2006).

Therapists utilising these perspectives can help individuals uncover the positive aspects of their experiences, such as personal growth, increased empathy, or a deepened sense of meaning and purpose. By reframing the narrative around trauma to include these positive aspects, therapists empower individuals to view themselves as active agents in their healing journey rather than mere victims of circumstances (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

Additionally, meaning making and PTG perspectives provide a broader context for understanding the complex and multifaceted nature of trauma. They acknowledge that traumatic experiences are not solely negative and destructive but can also serve as catalysts for personal transformation and growth (Neimeyer, 2006). Therapists can guide individuals in exploring the broader meanings and implications of their trauma, helping them make sense of the experience within the larger framework of their lives (Joseph & Linley, 2006).

These perspectives also contribute to a more comprehensive approach to therapy by addressing not only symptom reduction but also the cultivation of post-traumatic growth and well-being. Therapeutic interventions that incorporate meaning-making and PTG principles focus on helping individuals find new sources of meaning, purpose, and value in their lives. Therapists may facilitate the exploration of personal values, goals, and aspirations that can guide individuals in the process of rebuilding their lives and creating a sense of post-traumatic growth (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

Moreover, the incorporation of meaning-making and PTG perspectives can foster a sense of hope and optimism in the therapeutic process. By emphasizing the potential for personal growth and transformation, therapists instil a sense of possibility and agency in individuals, encouraging them to envision a future beyond the limitations imposed by their trauma (Joseph & Linley, 2006). This optimistic outlook can motivate individuals to engage actively in therapy, persist in their recovery efforts, and develop a more positive outlook on life.

The therapeutic integration of meaning-making and PTG perspectives also addresses the emotional and psychological aspects of trauma recovery. Engaging in the process of meaning-making allows individuals to make sense of their experiences, integrate their trauma within their life narrative, and develop a coherent understanding of their identity and worldview (Neimeyer, 2006). This process can contribute to emotional regulation, a sense of coherence, and a reduction in distress associated with trauma.

Likewise, these perspectives facilitate a deep exploration of the individual’s values, beliefs, and priorities. Therapists can assist individuals in examining their core values and how these may have been impacted or reshaped by the trauma experience. By aligning their lives with their values, individuals can experience a greater sense of authenticity, fulfilment, and resilience in the face of adversity (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

Incorporating meaning-making and PTG perspectives also offers a culturally sensitive and inclusive approach to therapy and recovery. These perspectives recognize the diversity of cultural backgrounds, beliefs, and values and allow for the incorporation of cultural factors into the healing process. Therapists can explore how cultural beliefs and practices shape individuals’ experiences of trauma and the meaning they ascribe to it. By considering cultural contexts, therapists can tailor interventions to honour and respect individuals’ cultural identities, facilitating a more meaningful and effective therapeutic process (Neimeyer, 2006; Joseph & Linley, 2006).

Another benefit of integrating meaning-making and PTG perspectives in therapy is their potential to empower individuals and foster a sense of agency and control. Traditional trauma therapies may inadvertently reinforce feelings of helplessness and victimhood by focusing solely on symptoms and the negative impact of trauma. However, meaning making and PTG perspectives shift the focus toward the individual’s capacity to find meaning, grow, and adapt in the aftermath of trauma (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). This shift empowers individuals to take an active role in their recovery, enhancing their sense of control and self-efficacy.

Further, the incorporation of meaning-making and PTG perspectives supports the building of a therapeutic alliance and a sense of trust between the therapist and the individual. By exploring the individual’s experiences, values, and personal growth goals, therapists demonstrate their genuine interest in the individual’s well-being and their commitment to supporting their unique journey of recovery. This collaborative and strengths-based approach fosters a safe and supportive therapeutic environment, promoting a strong therapeutic alliance that is essential for successful therapy (Neimeyer, 2006).

It is important to note that integrating meaning-making and PTG perspectives in therapy does not negate the need for addressing trauma-related symptoms or psychological distress. These perspectives complement evidence-based treatments and can be integrated within various therapeutic modalities, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy, narrative therapy, or expressive arts therapy. Therapists can adapt and tailor interventions to incorporate elements of meaning-making and PTG while also addressing individual needs and symptoms associated with trauma (Joseph & Linley, 2006).

Research has demonstrated the positive outcomes associated with incorporating meaning-making and PTG perspectives in therapy. Studies have found that individuals who engage in meaning-making processes following trauma report higher levels of post-traumatic growth, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction (Park, 2010). Therapeutic interventions that focus on meaning-making and PTG have been shown to lead to positive changes in individuals’ cognitions, emotional regulation, and overall functioning (Joseph & Linley, 2006).

The commonly held notion that public testimony and publicly revisiting traumatic experiences is inherently therapeutic is widely established within Western trauma models. The underlying premise is that individuals who have endured trauma will benefit from articulating their experiences, thereby facilitating the cathartic release of pent-up emotions, promoting understanding and acceptance, and contributing to healing (Herman, 1997). This assumption has informed the development and application of various therapeutic approaches such as exposure therapy, narrative therapy, and testimonial therapy. However, this perspective has been scrutinised and challenged, most notably by Summerfield (1999), who critically examines this assumption amongst others within his critique of psychological trauma programmes in war-affected areas.

Summerfield (1999) contends that the process of public testimony and revisiting traumatic experiences may not always be therapeutic, and in some cases, it may even be re-traumatising. He posits that this process can sometimes lead to the reactivation of traumatic memories, causing distress and potentially exacerbating trauma symptoms. Moreover, he suggests that such an approach may unintentionally reinforce a victim identity, which may impede the process of recovery and reintegration into normal life.

Summerfield (1999) also underscores the importance of cultural context in determining whether public testimony is therapeutic or not. He argues that in some cultures, public sharing of personal distress may be regarded as inappropriate or even shameful, and forcing individuals to publicly recount their traumatic experiences could potentially cause additional harm. This perspective highlights the necessity of culturally sensitive approaches to trauma therapy and the dangers of blanket applications of Western models to non-Western contexts.

Additionally, Summerfield (1999) raises concerns about the power differentials inherent in the process of public testimony, particularly in war-affected areas. He suggests that the process of public testimony can sometimes serve the interests of those in power, such as governmental and non-governmental organisations, rather than the individuals themselves. For instance, public testimonies can be used to garner international sympathy and aid, potentially prioritising political and economic gains over the well-being of the individual.

Summerfield’s (1999) critique is not an outright dismissal of the potential therapeutic value of public testimony and revisiting traumatic experiences. Instead, it serves as a cautionary reminder of the potential risks and pitfalls of this approach. His critique underscores the need for a nuanced, individualised, and culturally sensitive approach to trauma therapy. It urges mental health professionals to carefully consider the unique circumstances and needs of each individual, the cultural context, and the potential implications of their therapeutic interventions.

Indeed, subsequent research has provided some empirical support for Summerfield’s critique against crudely staged immersion or testimony. Studies have reported mixed outcomes for therapies that involve revisiting traumatic experiences, with some individuals benefitting while others experience distress or no significant change (Schauer et al., 2005; Van Minnen et al., 2002). Similarly, research has highlighted the potential for re-traumatisation, particularly in cases where individuals are forced or coerced into sharing their traumatic experiences (Briere et al., 2005).

Summerfield’s (1999) critique of the trauma myth, specifically, that public testimony and revisiting traumatic experiences is inherently therapeutic offers a valuable counterpoint to the dominant discourse in trauma therapy. It underscores the necessity of adopting a balanced, reflective, and culturally sensitive approach to trauma therapy, one that acknowledges the potential benefits and risks of public testimony and revisiting traumatic experiences.

The integration of meaning-making and post-traumatic growth perspectives in therapy and recovery processes offers numerous benefits. These perspectives shift the focus from a deficit-based model to a strengths-based approach, acknowledging the inherent resilience and transformative potential within individuals who have experienced trauma. Through safe exploration of the meaning of the traumatic experience, individuals can reconstruct their narratives, find purpose, and value in their lives, and can–in a safe therapeutic environment–develop a sense of post-traumatic growth (though the potential for re-traumatisation requires vigilance and care by experienced professionals at triage, assessment and appraisal treatment stages). Together these perspectives can promote hope, empowerment, and a sense of agency, while also facilitating emotional processing and cultural sensitivity. And through prudently incorporating these perspectives into therapy, mental health professionals can enhance the effectiveness of interventions and support individuals in their healing journey following trauma.

7. Conclusion 

7.1 Summary of the main arguments and findings 

The construct of the trauma myth alludes to the dominant narrative that surrounds trauma, often painting it with broad strokes as an inherently ruinous and paralysing experience. This narrative, which has been instrumental in shaping our understanding of trauma, has underscored its deleterious impact, while often downplaying or outright omitting the potential for growth, fortitude, and positive outcomes. A closer examination of a multitude of perspectives, buttressed by empirical findings, reveals that this trauma myth is indeed reductive and fails to encapsulate the intricacies and nuances of individual experiences and responses to traumatic events.

A salient contention against the trauma myth is that it fails to adequately acknowledge the diversity of responses to trauma and the considerable variation in individual outcomes. Extensive empirical research illuminates the heterogeneity in individuals’ psychological, emotional, and behavioural responses to traumatic events (Bonanno, 2004). While some may grapple with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or significant distress, others might showcase remarkable resilience and post-traumatic growth, experiencing positive psychological transformations as a consequence of their traumatic encounters (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). These findings effectively problematise the assertion that trauma invariably results in pathology, and underscore the need to acknowledge the spectrum of individual responses.

Another important argument is that the myth of trauma fails to acknowledge the role of personal and contextual factors in shaping trauma outcomes. Factors such as pre-existing psychological resilience, social support, and the availability of coping resources can influence an individual’s ability to recover and thrive following trauma (Southwick et al., 2014). Resilience, in particular, plays a significant role in buffering the negative effects of trauma and promoting positive adaptation (Bonanno, 2004). By focusing solely on the negative consequences of trauma, the myth obscures the potential for growth and resilience that can emerge from the adversity.

Further, the myth of trauma neglects the cultural and societal influences on the interpretation and experience of trauma. Cultural factors, such as beliefs, values, and societal norms, shape individuals’ understanding of trauma and influence their responses to it (Marsella & Christopher, 2004). Different cultures may have unique ways of coping with and making meaning of traumatic events, challenging the assumption of a universal trauma experience. Therefore, it is essential to consider cultural perspectives and sensitivities when discussing and addressing trauma to avoid perpetuating a one-size-fits-all narrative.

Critics of the myth of trauma also highlight the potential for post-traumatic growth and positive transformations following traumatic experiences. Post-traumatic growth refers to the psychological changes that individuals can undergo after trauma, leading to an increased sense of personal strength, enhanced relationships, and a greater appreciation for life (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). This concept challenges the notion that trauma is solely destructive, suggesting that individuals can emerge from their experiences with newfound strengths and perspectives. By overlooking post-traumatic growth, the myth of trauma limits our understanding of the human capacity for resilience and positive change.

Additionally, the myth of trauma fails to acknowledge the individual’s active role in meaning-making and narrative reconstruction. Meaning-making involves the process of finding significance, coherence, and purpose in the aftermath of trauma (Neimeyer, 2006). Individuals have the capacity to construct narratives that incorporate their traumatic experiences into a broader life story, creating meaning and facilitating the healing process. By recognizing the agency and active role of individuals in their own recovery, we move away from a passive victim narrative and empower individuals to find their own paths to healing and growth.

Moreover, the myth of trauma perpetuates a deficit-based model that focuses solely on symptom reduction and pathology. It tends to overlook the potential for positive adaptation, resilience, and thriving in the face of adversity. By reframing the narrative and incorporating alternative perspectives, such as meaning-making and post-traumatic growth, we adopt a strengths-based approach that acknowledges the resources, strengths, and potential for growth within individuals (Joseph & Linley, 2006). This shift in perspective allows us to move beyond the limitations of the myth of trauma and embrace a more holistic understanding of the human experience.

The myth of trauma perpetuates a narrative that trauma is solely destructive, universally debilitating, and devoid of positive outcomes. However, a critical examination of various perspectives and research findings reveals the limitations and shortcomings of this myth. The diversity of trauma responses, the role of personal and contextual factors, the influence of culture, the potential for post-traumatic growth, and the active role of individuals in meaning-making and narrative reconstruction all challenge the simplistic understanding of trauma as an inherently negative experience.

Recognising the limitations of the myth of trauma opens up new possibilities for supporting individuals who have experienced trauma. It invites us to adopt a more nuanced and inclusive approach that acknowledges the complex nature of trauma and the potential for growth and resilience. By shifting the focus from deficits to strengths, from pathology to post-traumatic growth, and from a universal narrative to individual experiences, we can provide more effective and empowering support to those affected by trauma.

Therapeutic interventions that incorporate these alternative perspectives offer a more comprehensive and person-centred approach to trauma recovery. By integrating meaning-making, resilience-building strategies, and promoting post-traumatic growth, therapists can facilitate healing, empowerment, and a sense of agency in individuals’ lives. Therapies such as cognitive-behavioural therapy, narrative therapy, and expressive arts therapy can be tailored to address the individual needs and unique narratives of trauma survivors (Joseph & Linley, 2006).

Moreover, adopting a cultural-sensitive approach to trauma acknowledges the influence of cultural beliefs, values, and practices on individuals’ experiences and responses to trauma. By honouring and respecting diverse cultural perspectives, therapists can create a safe and inclusive space for individuals to explore and reconstruct their narratives in ways that are meaningful and relevant to their cultural context (Marsella & Christopher, 2004).

It is a sobering thought to consider that the trauma myth fails to capture the complexity and diversity of individuals’ experiences and responses to trauma. So by challenging this myth and embracing alternative perspectives, we can move beyond a deficit-based model and recognise the potential for growth, resilience, and positive transformations in the aftermath of trauma. Incorporating meaning-making, post-traumatic growth, cultural sensitivity, and person-centred approaches into therapy can enhance the recovery process and empower individuals to reclaim their narratives, find meaning, and build a more hopeful and fulfilling future.

7.2 Reflection on the implications of debunking the myth of trauma for clinical practice and societal attitudes

Dismantling the trauma myth and welcoming heterodox views on trauma bears significant ramifications for clinical practice as well as societal perceptions of trauma. This shift disrupts the traditional view of trauma as an exclusively destructive force, bringing to the fore the potential for growth, resilience, and positive metamorphosis in the wake of traumatic incidents. By acknowledging the complexity and individual variability of trauma responses, we can cultivate a more sophisticated and inclusive perspective, fostering the well-being of those who have experienced trauma and cultivating a society that is more empathetic and supportive.

In the realm of clinical practice, the dismantling of the trauma myth necessitates a transformative shift towards a therapeutic paradigm underpinned by a strengths-based and person-centred ethos. Therapists must broaden their scope beyond merely reducing symptoms and focusing on pathologies, to incorporate interventions that underscore resilience, post-traumatic growth, and the construction of meaning. By acknowledging and building upon the strengths and resources of the individuals they work with, therapists can empower survivors of trauma to regain control of their healing journey, engendering a sense of hope and empowerment (Joseph & Linley, 2006).

One implication for clinical practice is the importance of assessing and addressing individual variability in trauma responses. Recognizing that trauma affects individuals in diverse ways allows therapists to tailor interventions to meet the unique needs and goals of each individual. Some may require support in processing and regulating intense emotions, while others may benefit from exploring the meaning and purpose of their experiences. By taking a personalized approach, therapists can provide more effective and targeted interventions that facilitate growth and well-being.

Additionally, the debunking of the myth of trauma emphasizes the significance of cultural sensitivity and understanding. Cultural factors play a vital role in shaping individuals’ experiences, beliefs, and responses to trauma. Therapists must acknowledge and respect the influence of cultural norms, values, and practices on trauma survivors’ narratives and coping strategies (Marsella & Christopher, 2004). This requires therapists to cultivate cultural competence and engage in ongoing education to better understand diverse cultural perspectives and adapt their interventions accordingly.

Further, the shift in clinical practice necessitates a collaborative and empowering therapeutic relationship. Therapists should strive to create a safe and supportive space that promotes shared decision-making, active participation, and the recognition of the individual’s agency in their healing journey. By actively involving trauma survivors in their treatment process, therapists can foster a sense of control, validation, and empowerment, which are crucial for promoting healing and growth (Neimeyer, 2006).

Debunking the myth of trauma also has implications for societal attitudes towards trauma. The trauma myth perpetuates a narrative of victimhood and helplessness, which can lead to stigmatisation, marginalization, and a lack of support for trauma survivors. By challenging this narrative, we can foster a more compassionate and understanding society that recognizes the resilience and potential for growth in trauma survivors.

One societal implication is the need for increased awareness and education about the diversity of trauma responses and the potential for post-traumatic growth. Promoting public discourse that challenges the myth of trauma can help reduce the stigma associated with trauma and create a more supportive environment for survivors. It encourages a shift in societal attitudes from pity or avoidance to empathy, validation, and active support.

Another important implication is the recognition of the importance of trauma-informed care in various settings, including education, healthcare, and the legal system. By integrating trauma-informed approaches, professionals in these fields can create environments that minimize retraumatisation, prioritize safety, and support the healing process. This requires training and education for professionals to understand the impact of trauma and the appropriate ways to respond to trauma survivors.

Additionally, the debunking of the myth of trauma challenges the notion of a universal experience of trauma. It highlights the importance of considering diverse cultural perspectives and individual narratives. This calls for societal attitudes that value cultural sensitivity, inclusivity, and respect for diverse experiences. It requires an acknowledgement that different cultures may have unique ways of understanding and respond to trauma and that these perspectives should be honoured and respected.

The implications of deemphasis for the myth of trauma for clinical practice and societal attitudes extend to policy and advocacy as well. It calls for the development of trauma-informed policies and support systems that prioritize the well-being and empowerment of trauma survivors. This includes ensuring access to trauma-informed mental health services, addressing systemic factors that contribute to trauma, and promoting social justice and equity.

As we pivot our understanding of trauma, it necessitates a more dedicated exploration of the elements that contribute to post-traumatic growth, resilience, and the extraction of meaning from these experiences. This ongoing research could potentially feed into evidence-based interventions, broadening our understanding of the diverse experiences and needs of those who have survived trauma. It is imperative to undertake studies that grapple with the complexities of trauma responses, take cultural considerations into account, and integrate a plurality of perspectives.

However, it is crucial to recognise the potential obstacles and limitations in the process of debunking the trauma myth. A portion of individuals may continue to grapple with significant distress and challenges in the aftermath of trauma, and it is essential to address their needs and provide appropriate support. Whilst accentuating resilience and growth, we must be cautious to avoid trivialising or dismissing the experiences of those who continue to struggle. The goal is to offer a balanced perspective that acknowledges both the potential for positive growth and the enduring impact of trauma on individuals’ lives.

Challenging the trauma myth and welcoming alternate viewpoints holds profound implications for clinical practice and societal attitudes. By recognising the diversity of trauma responses, the importance of cultural sensitivity, and the potential for post-traumatic growth, we can cultivate a more empathetic, empowering, and inclusive approach to supporting those who have survived trauma. This requires a shift in therapeutic approaches towards strengths-based interventions, heightened awareness and education in society, the implementation of trauma-informed policies and support systems, and continuous research to enhance our understanding of trauma and its impacts. Ultimately, by contesting the trauma myth, we lay the groundwork for healing, growth, and resilience in the lives of those affected by traumatic experiences.

References

Alexander, J. C. (2004). Toward a Theory of Cultural Trauma. In J. C. Alexander, R. Eyerman, B. Giesen, N. J. Smelser & P. Sztompka (Eds.), Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity (pp. 1–30). University of California Press.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd Edition (DSM-III). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Bloom, S. L. (2013). Creating Sanctuary: Toward the Evolution of Sane Societies. London & New York: Routledge.

Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have We Underestimated the Human Capacity to Thrive After Extremely Aversive Events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28.

Bracken, P. J., Giller, J. E., & Summerfield, D. (1995). Psychological responses to war and atrocity: The limitations of current concepts. Social Science & Medicine, 40(8), 1073-1082.

Brave Heart, M. Y. H. (2003). The Historical Trauma Response Among Natives and Its Relationship with Substance Abuse: A Lakota Illustration. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 35(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2003.10399988

Briere, J., Kaltman, S., & Green, B. L. (2005). Accumulated childhood trauma and symptom complexity. Journal of traumatic stress, 18(2), 181-189.

Brison, S. J. (2002). Aftermath: Violence and the Remaking of a Self. Princeton University Press.

Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. Journal of Social Issues, 54(2), 245-266.

Charuvastra, A., & Cloitre, M. (2008). Social bonds and post-traumatic stress disorder. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 301-328.

Courtois, C. A. (2004). Complex Trauma, Complex Reactions: Assessment and Treatment. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41(4), 412-425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.41.4.412

Ehlers, A., & Clark, D. M. (2000). A cognitive model of post-traumatic stress disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(4), 319-345.

Fischer, G. N. (1985). Psychologie sociale du travail et des organisations. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Frankl, V. E. (1985). Man’s Search for Meaning. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Freud, S. (1895). Studies on Hysteria. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 2). Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1895)

Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the Pleasure Principle. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 18, pp. 1–64). Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1920)

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Herman, J. L. (1997). Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence—From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror. New York: Basic Books.

Hinton, D. E., & Lewis-Fernandez, R. (2010). Idioms of distress among trauma survivors: Subtypes and clinical utility. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 34(2), 209–218.

Hinton, D. E., & Lewis-Fernandez, R. (2010). The cross-cultural validity of post-traumatic stress disorder: Implications for DSM-5. Depression and Anxiety, 28(9), 783-801.

Janet, P. (1901). The Mental State of Hystericals: A Study of Mental Stigmata and Mental Accidents. Walter Scott Publishing Co. (Original work published 1893)

Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2006). Growth following adversity: Theoretical perspectives and implications for clinical practice. Clinical psychology review, 26(8), 1041-1053.

Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2006). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 262-280.

Kellermann, N. P. F. (2001). The Long-Term Psychological Effects and Treatment of Holocaust Trauma. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 6(3), 197-218.   https://doi.org/10.1080/108114401753201660

Kirmayer, L. J., Lemelson, R., & Barad, M. (2007). Understanding Trauma: Integrating Biological, Clinical, and Cultural Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Krell, R. (1993). Child survivors of the Holocaust: Strategies of adaptation. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 38(6), pp. 384-389.

Leese, P. (2002). Shell Shock: Traumatic Neurosis and the British Soldiers of the First World War. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543-562.

Marsella, A. J., & Christopher, M. A. (2004). Ethnocultural considerations in disasters: An overview of research, issues, and directions. Psychiatric Clinics, 27(3), 521-539.

Marsella, A. J., & Yamada, A. M. (2000). Culture and trauma. In J. P. Wilson & C. S. Tang (Eds.), Cross-cultural assessment of psychological trauma and PTSD (pp. 241-275). Springer.

Masson, J. M. (1984). The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction Theory. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238.

McNally, R. J., & Robinaugh, D. J. (2011). Risk factors and post-traumatic stress disorder: Are they especially predictive following exposure to less severe stressors? Depression and Anxiety, 28(11), 1091–1096.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. Guilford Press.

Neimeyer, R. A. (2006). Meaning reconstruction and the experience of loss. American Psychological Association.

Neimeyer, R. A. (2006). Narrative Constructions of Meaning in Loss. Constructing Stories, Telling Tales: A Guide to Formulation in Applied Psychology, 54.

Orange, D. M. (2011). The Suffering Stranger: Hermeneutics for Everyday Clinical Practice. New York: Routledge.

Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning-making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257-301.

Schauer, M., Neuner, F., & Elbert, T. (2005). Narrative exposure therapy: A short-term treatment for traumatic stress disorders. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

Southwick, S. M., Bonanno, G. A., Masten, A. S., Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014). Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: interdisciplinary perspectives. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5(1), 25338.

Stolorow, R. D. (2007). Trauma and Human Existence: Autobiographical, Psychoanalytic, and Philosophical Reflections. New York: Routledge.

Summerfield, D. (1999). A critique of seven assumptions behind psychological trauma programmes in war-affected areas. Social Science & Medicine, 48(10), pp. 1449-1462.

Summerfield, D. (2001). The invention of post-traumatic stress disorder and the social usefulness of a psychiatric category. BMJ, 322(7278), 95–98.

Taleb, N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House.

Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Post-traumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1-18.

Terr, L.C. (1991). Childhood traumas: An outline and overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148(1), pp. 10-20.

Van der Kolk, B.A. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. Viking.

Van der Kolk, B.A., Roth, S., Pelcovitz, D., Sunday, S., and Spinazzola, J. (2005). Disorders of extreme stress: The empirical foundation of a complex adaptation to trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(5), pp. 389-399.

Van Minnen, A., Arntz, A., & Keijsers, G. P. J. (2002). Prolonged exposure in patients with chronic PTSD: Predictors of treatment outcome and dropout. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(4), 439-457.

Watters, E. (2010). Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche. New York, NY: Free Press.

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. Jossey-Bass.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Kegan Paul.

Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.

Young, A. (1995). The Harmony of Illusions: Inventing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Princeton University Press.

Copyright Paul Wadey M.Res M.Sc MBACP (Accred.)

The moral right of the author has been asserted