Empowering Trauma
A recent article in The New Yorker discusses the process of psychological suffering and resilience. The article notes that persons suffering from early childhood trauma stand as much chance as anyone else of leading a healthy and psychologically whole life. Bruce Rind and other published a study in The Psychological Bulletin that victims of childhood sexual abuse showed remarkable psychological resiliency and growth after such trauma. These results seem antithetical to the popular narrative of our time that stipulates individuals are traumatized for their entire lives after extreme crises. Indeed, in the context of Gulf War syndrome, Vietnam-related psychological ailments and even post-traumatic stress disorder would point to a growing awareness of exactly the opposite; the fragility of the modern human psyche.
To quote the magazine, "it is a shift in perception so profound that the United States congress could be presented with evidence of the unexpected strength and resilience of the human spirit and reject it without a single dissenting voice."
Aside from this brief mention of politics, the author of the article, Malcolm Gladwell, extends the discussion of trauma only to the personal and interpersonal spheres of psychology. I believe that there is more import to Congress' vote than censuring "junk science". Indeed, an analysis of the connection between politics and trauma is a missing component to Gladwell's analysis. One hinted at, as apparent in the last quote, but ultimately unfulfilled as he turns his content from psychological research and its relation to popular notions back to the realm of literature, fiction. I believe a contemporary analysis of trauma in relation to the social is essential to understanding the shift in perception of resiliency towards fragility. The past presidential campaign hold particular insights into this relation.
The recent elections have concluded. This last campaign was an interesting case study of the interaction between social traumas and their lack of resolution. The political modus operandi seems to encourage a perspective of psychological fragility after trauma. Indeed, one might conclude that the 2004 presidential campaign, aside from broad political themes and issues, was driven by psychological trauma. Further, it seems apparent now that the election has concluded, that the presence of trauma within the political sphere is not anodyne. Instead, the decision to raise the social traumas of the past into the political discource appears calculated. A few constituitive themes supplied the backdrop for this election (not in any order of importance or relevance):
1) The mishaps of the 2000 election
2) The War in Vietnam
3) September 11
It is clear that for many liberals, the memory of 2000 and its divisive finish remain an unresolved social trauma. One not vindicated for them by the most current election cycle. The memory and trauma of the last election served as a powerful force for get out the vote drives. Indeed, though President Bush has won the popular vote by over 3 million in 2004, it seems the sting of 2000 is not alleviated; it seems the splinter has been pushed in deeper. Get out the vote drives amongst the African-American community have and will continue to question issues like voter disenfranchisement and fraud. Regardless of current results, it seems that the 2000 elections continue to create a crises of legitimacy for the president, and the voting process as a whole.
It is unclear to what extent the Kerry campaign raised the memory and conflict over the war in Vietnam to highlight his own service and to what extent this conflict exists sui generis within the social consciousness of the United States. What is clear is that such focus on Vietnam has been understood as a powerful psychological and ultimately political tool. The Bush campaign's undermining of Kerry's record and the necessitated affirmation of Bush's own service highlights the political sway that both sides see over the memory of Vietnam. Arguably as much as the current war in Iraq, the actions and conflict in Vietnam continue to demand a carefully crafted political response and approach.
Finally, undoubtedly the first election after the terrorist attacks on September 11th would bear a particular stamp of those events. The question that seems most relevant here is how long memory has been defined and pushed within the political debates. Also, how long will the images of September 11th define the political psyches and futures of the United States? How resilient can we, as a society be, when the trauma is repeated, spinned, leveraged?
For individuals who have survived childhood sexual abuse, the natural and innate methods of coping, expanding, growing beyond such experience seem to push the individual back towards normalcy. The Rin research suggests that this is a very real possibility. Emotions serve their filtering effect and are done, consumed by either time or new experiences. Can the political and social survivors among us (from all political backgrounds) grow resilient in similar ways? Can political discourse grow beyond empowering trauma and instead allow the nation to mourn and eventually heal?
To quote the magazine, "it is a shift in perception so profound that the United States congress could be presented with evidence of the unexpected strength and resilience of the human spirit and reject it without a single dissenting voice."
Aside from this brief mention of politics, the author of the article, Malcolm Gladwell, extends the discussion of trauma only to the personal and interpersonal spheres of psychology. I believe that there is more import to Congress' vote than censuring "junk science". Indeed, an analysis of the connection between politics and trauma is a missing component to Gladwell's analysis. One hinted at, as apparent in the last quote, but ultimately unfulfilled as he turns his content from psychological research and its relation to popular notions back to the realm of literature, fiction. I believe a contemporary analysis of trauma in relation to the social is essential to understanding the shift in perception of resiliency towards fragility. The past presidential campaign hold particular insights into this relation.
The recent elections have concluded. This last campaign was an interesting case study of the interaction between social traumas and their lack of resolution. The political modus operandi seems to encourage a perspective of psychological fragility after trauma. Indeed, one might conclude that the 2004 presidential campaign, aside from broad political themes and issues, was driven by psychological trauma. Further, it seems apparent now that the election has concluded, that the presence of trauma within the political sphere is not anodyne. Instead, the decision to raise the social traumas of the past into the political discource appears calculated. A few constituitive themes supplied the backdrop for this election (not in any order of importance or relevance):
1) The mishaps of the 2000 election
2) The War in Vietnam
3) September 11
It is clear that for many liberals, the memory of 2000 and its divisive finish remain an unresolved social trauma. One not vindicated for them by the most current election cycle. The memory and trauma of the last election served as a powerful force for get out the vote drives. Indeed, though President Bush has won the popular vote by over 3 million in 2004, it seems the sting of 2000 is not alleviated; it seems the splinter has been pushed in deeper. Get out the vote drives amongst the African-American community have and will continue to question issues like voter disenfranchisement and fraud. Regardless of current results, it seems that the 2000 elections continue to create a crises of legitimacy for the president, and the voting process as a whole.
It is unclear to what extent the Kerry campaign raised the memory and conflict over the war in Vietnam to highlight his own service and to what extent this conflict exists sui generis within the social consciousness of the United States. What is clear is that such focus on Vietnam has been understood as a powerful psychological and ultimately political tool. The Bush campaign's undermining of Kerry's record and the necessitated affirmation of Bush's own service highlights the political sway that both sides see over the memory of Vietnam. Arguably as much as the current war in Iraq, the actions and conflict in Vietnam continue to demand a carefully crafted political response and approach.
Finally, undoubtedly the first election after the terrorist attacks on September 11th would bear a particular stamp of those events. The question that seems most relevant here is how long memory has been defined and pushed within the political debates. Also, how long will the images of September 11th define the political psyches and futures of the United States? How resilient can we, as a society be, when the trauma is repeated, spinned, leveraged?
For individuals who have survived childhood sexual abuse, the natural and innate methods of coping, expanding, growing beyond such experience seem to push the individual back towards normalcy. The Rin research suggests that this is a very real possibility. Emotions serve their filtering effect and are done, consumed by either time or new experiences. Can the political and social survivors among us (from all political backgrounds) grow resilient in similar ways? Can political discourse grow beyond empowering trauma and instead allow the nation to mourn and eventually heal?
posted by Admin at
1:00 PM
|
0 comments
Portfolio URL: http://www.wooloo.org/maddocks