Add new comment

People in uncolonised indigenous and especially hunter-gatherer societies live in a lifeworld which is immediately present. They have supportive social networks, autonomy, connection to nature, a meaningful world, and their needs are usually met by the environment. Life is defined in terms of peak experience or experience of communion. Alienation (capitalism, statism, civilisation, colonialism) takes some or all of these away. So right away, there is a traumatic wound. Of course this varies with how much is taken away and how the person or group responds. The dull ennui of boring middle-class consumerism is different from the sharply painful crises of marginality, even though they come from the same traumatic wound. At root the difficulty is that we can't integrate our desires (id) with our survival (ego) and our values (superego), because of blockages in the outer world. Although the root cause is outer, it gets internalised. Alienation involves separation between mind and body. Often we build up muscular blocks to stop feeling certain things, or because of patterns of work or sitting still etc. This can be involuntary and sometimes we can't even feel the blocks are there. Also it's painful to desire, or to morally value, things we can't have. Often people adapt by suppressing the desires or values and fitting into the system. And most people (not some of us I hasten to add) also rely heavily on others or "society" as a source of desires and values.

According to current mainstream trauma theories, people get traumatised when they suffer fight-flight(-freeze-appease) responses, particularly if these aren't expressed or resolved in the moment. They get trapped in the body, whereas animals just "shake it off" (literally shake their bodies) after a freeze-up. I think there might also be deeper aspects around attachment and belief the world is safe, and building up blockages to feeling which block pleasure as well as pain. The system needs a certain level of trauma to function. Authoritarianism requires psychological repression because people rebel against unequal arrangements. Humiliation, violence, unmet needs produce anger. The anger is meant to be directed at the source of frustration or threat - bosses, pigs, teachers, parents, etc. But in authoritarian systems, upward-directed anger is banned and there's overwhelming power directed against its expression. This causes trapped fight-flight energies which are either displaced in violence elsewhere or turned inwards as depression, self-flagellation, etc. Many people internalise the authoritarian or even identify with them. They build up a superego - an internal moral compass - which works as a cop in the head. However, too much trauma, or the wrong kind, makes people dysfunctional for the system. Hence why trauma is a "disorder" and various other things rooted in trauma are also "disorders". Mainstream therapy is based on maintaining a certain level of trauma while also developing "resilience" techniques so people cope well enough to keep functioning.

I think the concept of trauma is overused today. It's used as a catch-all for psychological problems and suffering, and a bridge between big general abstractions and personal experiences. Everything previously considered "mental illness", "neurosis/psychosis", "madness" etc is reclassified as trauma. At this point it becomes so imprecise as to be unhelpful for practical purposes. And it's quite similar to the idea of "mental health" in that trauma is considered to be a kind of ill-health which is to be treated in specified ways which mainly work to restore normal functioning. The main difference, then, is political: trauma theory focuses on sociogenesis rather than internal deficit. Personally I prefer bioenergetic and psychoanalytic models which think in terms of complex interactions of internal forces (and not necessarily their health and illness).

There are different psychological types, formed by different matrixes of tra