“The Silence of Trauma and Myth of a ‘Just World’:

the Possible Contributions of Political Psychology

to Societies and Identities”

by

Chad Michael Briggs

Department of Political Science, Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6
Canada
cbriggs@ccs.carleton.ca

Paper prepared for the Social Identities Panel,

International Society of Political Psychology annual conference,
Montreal, Canada, 12 July 1998

ABSTRACT

Examining the important role of social identity and culture in our larger understandings
of politics, this paper suggests that the role of trauma in society questions several key
assumptions often held in political science. The role of rationality in explaining individual
or group behaviour assumes simple and easily discernible categories of identity, but the
presence of widespread trauma both negates this possibility, as well as forming new
and largely unseen patterns. Group identities formerly believed to be solid show inner
divisions, and this can spread to larger divisions within societies and resultant political
problems, even if the original source of this unrest remains poorly understood by those
adhering to traditional political science approaches. In this manner, subjects not
normally considered political may be rethought as containing political and psychological
dynamics.
 The Silence of Trauma and Myth of a ‘Just World’

“Condemn the fault, and not the actor of it?”

(William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure)

The divisions between ‘us’ and ‘them’ are often considered to be the basis of
politics. We can understand few major political events without examination of the
identity and group politics at work, while politics itself attempts to reinforce or bridge
such boundaries. Such group taxonomies are important in understanding who the
‘players’ are, how they define themselves, and how others define them. These
processes of socialization and social identity are paramount to deeper understandings
of political events, from election primaries in the U.S. to the Holocaust in Europe, yet
times exist when our analyses may become suspect.
How do we identify such groups in the first place? And once identified, how well
do such divisions mirror reality, as opposed to simply fitting our normative ideals of what
should be true? Unpleasant truths exist which many of us do not wish to address, or are
simply unable to study due to the nature of the problem and how it is little discussed in
general. Moreover, the political climate may largely determine which subjects one
studies and which we push under the rug, so to speak, as a manner of legitimacy must
surround an idea before it is acceptable. Such was the case in the past with hysteria in
women, and later with combat trauma among war veterans. Before these times blaming
the individual for the symptoms they possessed was common, rather than examining
the larger context within which they acquired such problems. As Herman (1992) relates
in her work on the subject of trauma, women or men in adverse conditions were blamed
for not being ‘strong enough’ to handle the situation, that they could either not contend
with combat or the rigour of daily life.
More recently, political aspects of feminism have allowed investigation of
domestic trauma in North America and Europe, leading to the discovery of widespread
abuse among both women and children. This has not simply entailed an examination of
the prevalence of such practices, but a re-conceptualization of the notion that

2
punishment of children makes them ‘stronger’, or that incest is merely a problem
because of the fuss that people make over it. (Miller 1994, 1997) Rather, the focus has
turned to examining the severe consequences of such actions upon the victims (or
“survivors”), both biologically and cognitively. This re-conceptualization of the effects of
physical and sexual abuse does not exist without severe contention, however, nor do
the forms taken always better the interests of those who were victimized. More directly,
examination of these topics often does not address the wider social and political
impacts of such trauma, electing instead to focus upon individual pathologies.
It is the subject of trauma among children which will remain the central thread of
this paper, in terms of how it affects and is affected by culture, identity, and politics.
Rather than existing as problems with which individuals alone must work, trauma
(especially when it occurs in children) affects wider conceptions of identity and social
issues, and may bring into question basic assumptions of the roles culture and identity
play as stabilizing forces. Trauma also affects larger social and political issues, resulting
from the changes in basic identity and social structures.

Definitions and Prevalence of Trauma

Trauma has gone by many names in the past: shell-shock, hysteria, soldier’s
heart, neurosis, combat fatigue, residential school syndrome, battered wife syndrome,
battered child syndrome, and most recently (as of 1980) post traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD). Although researchers have long known and documented the symptomology of
trauma, the incidence of such trauma has been a much more clouded issue.
Historically, they have interpreted such traumas in a wide range of different manners,
ranging from supernatural explanations of witchcraft and demonic possessions, to
those which suggest individual pathological natures of chemical imbalances or genetic
origin. Perhaps more common is the notion that such reactions to events are the result
of willful manipulation by the “victim,” as a way of asserting a form of power over others.
This is often the explanation given to the behaviour of young children, who are simply
too ‘willful’ in controlling their parents. (Bloom, 1997; Miller, 1994)

3
 Some of these interpretations changed following the experiences of Vietnam war
veterans in the U.S., however, and the psychiatric and medical professions first codified
PTSD in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders 1980 (DSM-III).
This was an important step, for it contextualized the role of trauma in the larger life
experiences of the survivor. Rather than existing as a condition of its own, this new
interpretation enabled those studying trauma to work with fairly common definitions of
what constituted trauma and what may have caused it. This is not to say that the
medical or psychiatric professions have embraced these definitions or incorporated
them into teaching and practice,i but that those who have worked on the issue have had
an easier time in constructing substantial models of trauma. (van der Kolk & McFarlane,
1996a)
Put simply, trauma results from experiences which the body considers life-
threatening, resulting in instinctive fight-or-flight reactions and intense physiological
changes. Massive amounts of hormones and neurotransmitters are released into the
body, producing changes tuned to the need for immediate survival, even if at the
expense of other basic bodily systems. The person becomes hyper-vigilant and alert,
ready to react to the threat which forced the stimulus. (Bloom, 1997)
Should these situations be short-lived, and the person experiencing them able to
deal with the situation, then these reactions may prove to be beneficial. Should a
person find him or herself in a situation of chronic traumatic arousal, and/or should the
situation be one in which the person has little or no control over their survival, then
these intense physiological changes can become ‘encoded’ into the body. This state of
panic may later be triggered by essentially harmless reminders of the original events,
and the person suffers a loss of arousal-modulation, meaning that she or he may
instantly switch from “normal” to “panicked” states of emotion, even in the absence of

i
In fact, this use of social contextualization m ay be far from the norm . Those who practice and teach
m edicine and psychiatry m ay still find it sim pler to either ignore the problem s associated with traum a, or to
pathologicalize them strictly to the individual. Doing so reinforces blam e upon the individual who was
traum atized, and alm ost com pletely diverts attention away from the perpetrators and the social conditions
in which they are found. In effect, it em phasizes that the person suffering from the traum atic experience is
m ore of a social concern than those who perpetrated the event. (Chrisjohn, et. al., 1997)

4
any outside threat. (Ibid.)
The medical literature on the effects of trauma on people is quite telling, although
it is a rather complex topic to attempt to summarize here. We should note, however,
that trauma greatly affects both basic physiological and brain functions of the survivor.
Young children whose brain development is far from complete at the time of the
experience may be at the greatest risk of suffering from long-term effects. These
include the aftereffects of basic psychological attempts at survival, such as dissociation,
learned helplessness, stress-induced health and learning problems, memory disorders,
poor ability at decision-making, and chronic hyper-arousal. (Ibid.; van der Kolk, 1996b,
1996c; Terr, 1990)
The prevalence of trauma in society is not well known. Currently, the most
“reliable” estimates which exist are based upon epidemiological studies of populations,
and report that some 23% of adolescents are exposed to some form of traumatic event
in the U.S., either through physical or sexual abuse, or by witnessing violence against
others. Of these, perhaps one in five suffered from diagnosed PTSD, although other
estimates of PTSD in society range from 9 percent in urban settings to more than 15
percent for Vietnam veterans. (van der Kolk, 1996b; 5)
Many would argue however that such statistics are misleading,ii as the ability of
survivors to adapt to trauma and fit in with the expectations of society are quite
impressive. As Judith Herman notes, “Most abused children reach adulthood with their
secrets intact.” (Herman, 1992; 110) The more probable percentage of people dealing
with trauma is much higher. An oft-cited statistic is that by the time they reach
adulthood, one-fifth to one-third of all women have had some form of an abusive sexual
encounter with an older male (Bloom, 1997; 196), while up to one-fifth of male children

ii
A few words of m ethodological caution m ay be in order with regards to such statistics. The ability of
survivors to m inim ize, deny, or sim ply not recall what happened to them is quite powerful, as is the
incentive they m ay feel to keep a veil of secrecy intact, even on an anonym ous questionnaire. In addition,
epidem iological studies can only detect those whose sym ptom s are known and correctly diagnosed, even
though m any coping m echanism s (such as over-working) are not only socially acceptable, but
encouraged. Furtherm ore, Hoff Som m ers’ (1995) cautions regarding the construction of questionnaires
related to abuse or rape should be heeded. It is possible to interpret both questions and num bers any
num ber of ways, depending upon what one hopes to find.

5
will have been sexually abused. (Hunter, 1990; 26) In addition, as many as one in eight
women will be the victim of rape sometime in her lifetime. (Bloom, 1997; 197)
Witnesses to violence can also be quite high, especially in some urban areas of the
U.S. and regions outside North America and Europe, although studies on such subjects
are scarce and one can only conjecture that the effect of such violence is strongly felt.
(Cairns, 1996) Overall, Sandra Bloom cites a study indicating that the number of
children traumatized in the U.S. in a single year equals the number of combat veterans
who served in Vietnam over a decade. (Bloom, 1997; 196)
Considering the widespread nature of trauma as it exists in the U.S. and
Canada, the effects of trauma must be approached from more than the standpoint of its
effects purely on individuals. Rather, its ability to subvert and destroy many important
links to people’s culture and identity must be given due thought, for the nature of these
issues is that of secrecy and denial, of hidden identities and politics which the society at
large would often rather ignore or minimize. Such secrets, however, cannot be kept
bottled up forever, for their effects may spill over into areas which we cannot help but
notice. The task at hand is to attempt to attribute these problems and concerns
correctly.

Cultural Politics and Trauma

Traditional understandings of identity suggest that our culture and identity act as
bases for our understanding of the world, providing a framework of meaningful
interpretation of events and how others fit into most given situations. These social
structures also provide support in cases of duress, upheaval, and other change on the
part of the individual, even when events put people’s vision of life and their goals into
stark question. Culture gives this social support as shared identities and visions of the
future, giving a fairly constant grounding in terms of one’s place in the world. (deVries,
1996) Normally stressful situations are thereby contained by the culture and social
identities within which one is found.
Trauma (as opposed to normal stress) is also found within the context of culture

6
and identity, although the dynamic is rather different. When trauma strikes an individual,
considering the social environment in which they are found is vital, for PTSD and
related disturbances are essentially social in origin. As deVries states, “PTSD is thus a
description of an illness process based not on the intrinsic nature of the person alone,
but rather on the person’s sociocultural interaction over time.” (Ibid.; 399) Culture helps
to determine both the manner in which a person will deal with trauma and how the
larger society will deal with that person, but the intense nature of trauma is typically
such that normal cultural support structures are unable to cope with them, unless the
trauma is something felt and acknowledged by all members of that culture. It is
important to emphasize that normally stressful situations and trauma are two essentially
different things, and although the form which trauma takes is in part determined by
culture, the identity and social supports normally found for stressful experiences begin
to break down in such situations.
Such traditional analyses often consider cultures and societies to be
homogeneous, and may mistake a political act of categorization as little more than a
pre-given order. Cultures or societies are not synonymous with identity. These same
structures may codify or support practices which perpetrate trauma against one group
or another, and thus contain a substantial political element. Such intra-group actions
effectively split identity groups apart, fragmenting what may appear to be (to the casual
observer) a solid social category. Nor is this simply true of modern or “post-modern”
societies, although some of the more Romanticist approaches to the issue may suggest
that more “traditional” societies are inherently better at providing support systems. (see
deVries, 1996) Despite the appeal of such arguments, the reality of the situation may
be such that seemingly sacrosanct categories of identity do not necessarily hold much
meaning for trauma survivors.
Several key reasons exist as to why this is so. The first is that all notions of
social identity assume a feeling of kinship, some form of a bond felt among its
members, often expressed in its most fundamental form in terms of the nuclear family.
In many (if not most) cases of childhood trauma, this basic trust is either broken or was
never present to begin with. Crucial developmental bonds between child and parent are

7
lost, as the child may assume that his or her elders have the power to stop whatever is
happening. This family upbringing has far-reaching effects as to how the child will relate
to others as an adult, and in most cases he or she will have great difficulty in forming
healthy bonds with other members of one’s community or family. (Bloom, 1997; Miller,
1997)
The inability to bond is largely biologically developmental in origin, although
cognitive development is also an important consideration. In this latter case the nature
of family upbringing is a matter of education and socialization, as the manner in which
one raises a child is a large factor in determining which social values and identities are
accepted. An authoritarian upbringing tends to instill such values into the child, and the
way in which they learn obedience over trust has social and political effects beyond how
they may raise their own children. A few writers have noted the link between punitive
childhoods and dispositions toward authoritarianism in the political sense, as well as the
inability to empathize with members of a particular outgroup. Some suggest that only
those who are able to come to terms with their past will be able to form the bridge into
safe relationships among family and community. (Miller, 1997; Bloom, 1997; Milburn
and Conrad, 1996)
This matter of healing or “reconnecting” may indicate how profound the
discontinuity is between the survivor and traditional social identity categories, and how
difficult it is to “come to terms with” trauma in one’s past.
Survivors whose personality has been shaped in the
traumatic environment often feel at this stage of recovery as
though they are refugees entering a new country. For
political exiles, this may literally be true; but for many others,
such as battered women or survivors of childhood abuse,
the psychological experience can only be compared to
immigration. They must build a new life within a radically
different culture from the one they have left behind. . .
“Although victims in their original homes, they are like
strangers in a foreign country, once ‘safely’ outside.”
(Herman, 1992; 196)

deVries’ analysis puts the matter in slightly starker terms, indicating that the
inability of culture to provide a cushion for events beyond the control of its members,

8
may result in the regression of identities to a more primitive, less communitarian state.

Traumas . . . create profound discontinuity in the order and

predictability that culture has brought to daily life and social
situations. When this occurs, traditional systems break down
and a conservative element often takes hold. Ethnicity,
nationalism, tribalism, and fundamentalism become means
of survival; all these are regressive moves to release
individuals behaviorally and ideologically from an intolerable
complexity that cannot be managed or used in a more
productive way. When culture as the identity giver fails,
other models of identity formation and social group formation
take its place. The roles and status that had previously
organized the system may have no further meaning. . . .
(deVries, 1996; 407, emphasis added)

This passage is interesting for the ironies presented within. While stating that
culture supports those suffering from trauma, the implication may be that there already
exist certain normative expectations as to how survivors should behave, coupled with a
form of determinism which indicates that only negative outcomes are likely, regardless.
Some of what is said is undoubtedly true, but we must take care not to write off coping
mechanisms as purely destructive to society, lest we begin to blame the victims for the
trouble we see around us.
The inability of survivors to find meaning in the social identity expected of them,
may result in the negation of such identity in favour of alternatives better suited to the
environment to which they have grown accustomed. Even those whose outward
appearance suggests a successful and well-adjusted citizen, may harbour a sort of dual
identity, a form of “doublethink” in which outward expressions and actions only serve (to
the survivor) to mask an unattractive interior. (Herman, 1992) Even invisible sufferers of
trauma may pass on this cultural dysfunction to their children. This intergenerational
aspect of trauma has been observed in regards to Holocaust survivors and war
veterans, and is believed to hold true for survivors of physical and sexual abuse, as

9
well.iii (Bloom, 1997)
But identity may also influence the manner in which this trauma is expressed.
Whether the survivor feels compelled to conform to society’s normative ideals, or
whether they reject these in favour of less acceptable forms of behaviour, depends in
part upon how the role of the victim is perceived or welcomed in a society. Male victims
of sexual abuse, for example, are far more likely to become violent or abusive
themselves, than are women survivors of such abuse. This is believed to be due partly
to the role which violence plays in defining what it means to be male in North American
society, and partly due to the difficulty men face in admitting that they were victims.
(Stoltenberg, 1990) Women, on the other hand, are more likely to internalize the guilt
and shame associated with victimization, and are more likely to show empathy towards
others.iv (Milburn & Conrad, 1996)
As Milburn and Conrad’s work shows quite well, however, the effects of such
formative experiences have profound consequences as to the society’s later ability to
deal with additional stressful or traumatic experiences. This is not simply a matter of the
breakdown of traditional support structures, but rest on a different dynamic of identity
formation and ingroup/outgroup formation and the attempted maintenance of a ‘just
world’. To relate to a ‘breakdown’ of ‘support structures’ is to fall into the trap of
considering a society or culture as if it were one tangible thing, and not by itself
composed of numerous dynamics and only partially seen groups. That groups may fall
into a process of ingroup/outgroup formation under duress, has already been
documented in a number of different contexts, although it is important to remember that
such processes are as much political as they are psychological. (Volkan, 1998) As

iii
As counter-intuitive as it m ay sound, the m ultigenerational nature of traum a m ay be so powerful that,
“The children of survivors show sym ptom s which could be expected if they actually lived through the
Holocaust.” (Herzog, as quoted in Bloom , 1997; 63) The attachm ent relationship between m others and
children plays an im portant role, as does the role of affective com m unication and learning in the fam ily:
what is not said is as im portant as what is said. (Bloom , 1997)

iv
There are, however, reports that fem ales growing up in North Am erica m ay be adopting m ore of the
violent and “socially disagreeable” patterns of behaviour, as opposed to those reactions traditionally
considered to be m ore “fem inine”. (Vobejda & Perlstein, 1998) It is too early to speculate on the causes
of this, but is m entioned sim ply to point out that cultural expectations of the sexes changes over tim e.

10
Staub (1992) considers in his works on mass violence, the threat of well-being to
groups or individuals intensifies group formation and the possible lashing out of one
group against another.
Of course, what Staub was referring to was the wholesale breakdown of the
economies and political structures of countries such as Germany and Cambodia, and
both he and Alice Miller (1997) were careful to point out that such childhood events
were necessary but not sufficient conditions for such awful realities. The narratives of
genocide may seem quite distant from a discussion of childhood trauma, but many of
the group processes which Staub describes are pertinent to a discussion of changing
identities in our societies.

Ingroups, Outgroups, and a ‘Just World’

As mentioned above, the role of familial attachment is important in the

disruptions caused by childhood trauma, and that part of the problem relates to the
changes in identity within the family. To secure a stable vision of the outside world, a
child first needs a trusting environment in which to be raised. Without such an
environment, identities may shift so that the survivor has trouble adapting to others
outside the family, and may learn certain authoritarian tendencies as well. This is not
simply a matter of the survivor being “confused” or misled, in some way. Rather, we
learn which roles different actors play in a society, much as Staub claimed that certain
actors such as soldiers or prison guards are expected to act in certain ways.
It is also possible to teach children that the roles of parent or caregiver in a
society are little different from that of a guard, or that police and other authority figures
are simply not to be trusted. Should we be treated in certain ways while young, it is
perhaps not surprising that later understandings of society and politics should be based
upon such traumatic and formative experiences. Attempts to make sense of the world
are based upon the belief that things happen for a reason in this world, and that
arbitrary violence is not part of the normative order.
The nature of modern political thought acts as an impediment to much thinking

11
on this issue, though this is not simply a matter of what is fashionable to consider at any
given time. Rather, a basic desire in post-Platonic and post-Enlightenment thought is for
order and rationality, for an end to the vagaries of nature and the unjust position in
which we find ourselves. This expresses itself in the call for a universal “end”; be it truth,
God, or any manner of Utopia we seek. The world has a perfectibility to which we have
a responsibility to strive. Any inability to reach this end is met with blame. Responsibility
must lay somewhere, we must have a reason why things do not turn out as we had
planned or hoped, and the notion of agency in this regards is paramount.
Nietzsche traces these ideas back to Socratic thought and the rise of rationality
as the rule of law, as opposed to the acceptance in pre-Athenian times of the chaotic
and suffering alongside with the joyful and ordered. (Saurette, 1996) The Roman
Empire and the Christian Church preserved these thoughts, which were later expressed
in their modern form in the rationality of the Enlightenment. In this approach, and
unable to accept the suffering inherent in the world, people desperately search for what
Nietzsche describes as “the hypnotic sense of nothingness, the repose of deepest
sleep, in short absence of suffering.” (As quoted in Saurette, 1996: 5)
This notion contains the understanding that suffering in the world only exists for a
reason, that we must believe in the ideal and, failing that, find a cause for the disorder.
This is a dual process of denial and attribution. As Elster (1993) suggests, a prime
motivation in political psychology is the reduction of cognitive dissonance, which in this
case can be accomplished by either denying the reality of suffering, or by blaming the
suffering on certain people or groups. What should be understood is that this is not
merely a psychological motivation, but remains a political goal, as well. Arendt (1958)
critiques Plato’s approach to politics as an extension of this Will To Order, and how the
condition of politics became the ability to faithfully order all people into one form, that of
the ruler himself.
For survivors of abuse or other suffering, their attempts to make sense of what
happened can be quite difficult to frame. The unconscious attempt to blame someone
for what happened to them can be quite disastrous if they perceive that what is
happening to them is their own fault. For survivors of abuse, this is an almost universal

12
emotion, so pervasive that it can affect all aspects of the person’s life. (Terr, 1990;
Hunter, 1990) If abuse occurs then it must be someone’s fault, but if it occurs at the
hands of a parent or caregiver, then the attempt to create the ‘just world’ will likely turn
inward and blame the victim. Survivors often believe that there is something inherently
wrong with them, rather than try to discard their view of authority figures (although this
may happen later in life).
One important way in which Staub’s ingroup dynamic is different for childhood
abuse survivors, however, is that most often there are no others with which to relate
and form an ingroup. There are exceptions to this, of course, but they are most often
found in small therapeutic communities which either have limited scope (group therapy)
or intense anonymity (such as Internet forums). By definition, even under acute threats
no ingroup can strengthen its bonds if those bonds do not exist, in the first place. As
mentioned, most other identities either served to perpetrate the trauma, or failed to
protect the experience from happening. In this manner one can say that trauma serves
to fragment existing groups far more than it strengthens existing.
The other manner of group formation to be considered is that of non-survivors,
often including those who have suffered from trauma but have failed to acknowledge it.
This is where the matter of the ‘just world’ comes into play, for there is a large role of
denial in addressing issues of abuse and violence in our own society. Certain actions
are hardly explicable in any rational fashion, and those actions which we consider to be
“evil” and morally reprehensible could therefore only be carried out by those persons
quite unlike ourselves. It seems far easier to believe that childhood sexual abuse and
the like could only be carried out by deranged individuals who are visibly the “dregs” of
society, than to think that most of this abuse is carried out by people (seemingly) quite
like ourselves. Should someone known in the community as a good citizen, who seems
to care about others and takes care of his family, be accused of sexually assaulting a
young child (especially one in his family), then it is far easier to avoid cognitive
dissonance in ourselves by not believing the story. Either she was making it all up as
some fantasy (Freud’s explanation) or a way to get attention (the more contemporary
explanation), or a malicious therapist planted these thoughts in her (the ‘False Memory

13
Syndrome’ explanation). It is somehow far more difficult to believe that it actually could
have happened, much less that it happens all the time.
As an example of such denial, a reference should be made to the Nicaraguan
ex-president Daniel Ortega, who has recently been accused of molesting his
stepdaughter over the course of a decade. In stepping out to accuse her stepfather,
however, others asserted that she was making up the story, and Ortega summarily fired
those in the Sandinista Party (of which he is still head) who supported her story. Even
she found it difficult to believe the situation, explaining,

For years, I had recognized that the leader at a personal

level could be evil and that as a public person he was
outstanding. I had to live with this duality. This was all
reinforced by the fact that during the revolution we were told
that the individual must be subjugated to the greater political
good. (as quoted in: Kovaleski, 1998; p. A17)

Similar examples abound. North American or European societies are not

generally able to comprehend the extent of the trauma which is occurring, and instead
erect psychological defences against such belief. These defences prevent both healing
on the part of the survivor (a point made earlier), as well as constructing a political
environment in which such abuses are allowed to continue. Even those supposedly
sympathetic to such causes may find it easier to discount stories of widespread abuse,
rather than have to tackle the grim consequences of such realities. Even academics
such as Elaine Showalter (1997), an avowed feminist, have rudely tossed aside claims
of repressed memories of sexual abuse among women. Showalter claims that such
‘hysteria’ is little more than a manifestation of some form of “millennial anxiety.” The
political aspects of this denial exist not only in the literature of Milburn and Conrad, but
also the way in which denial becomes institutionalized in environments from academia
to politics.

14
Academic Denial and Silence

Whatever the specific arguments made, the underlying tension in academic

pursuits is that there are certain subjects too touchy, too delicate to examine. Meta-
theories and multiple layers of abstractions are far more acceptable than attempts to
tackle certain “issues of the day,” however desperate those suffering from such “issues”
may feel. The clearly demarcated lines of a Department’s subject area often remain
firm, in that, “Despite appearances, there are no radicals in academe. Everyone is a
reactionary where their own field is concerned.” (as quoted in Matthews, 1997; p. 146)
Examination of childhood trauma may be no exception to this charge.
Scholarly investigation into such subjects has been rare, especially for any
discipline outside psychology or psychiatry. Even within these areas, there has been a
well-documented history of skirting the issue and reverting to techniques which blame
the victim for what has happened, reflecting a focus upon individual pathologies at the
expense of wider social conditions. (Chrisjohn, et. al., 1997) Regardless, the issue of
childhood trauma seems an appropriate subject for psychology, which then perhaps
begs the question, why does this matter to other disciplines? Or in particular reference
to this paper, why does it matter to political science?
First, there are obvious policy implications related to this subject, depending
upon whether one chooses to focus upon prevention, healing, or prosecution. However,
to admit that abuse occurs at epidemic proportions would mean that these three areas
would have to take great responsibility to do something about the problem. This makes
it even more unlikely that things will be dealt with should a quieter alternative be
available. The important point, however, is that as long as there remains a focus upon
individual pathologies as the result of trauma, the government and those who study it
will assume that both culpability and responsibility lay outside normal jurisdictions. If
indeed these are acts of individuals against other individuals (or so the argument goes),
then the burden of responsibility lay outside government action or study.
Political science has additional problems concerning methodology. The study of
group action in political science assumes a great deal of rational choice as to which

15
groups people belong to and what they do as groups. As this paper has attempted to
show, however, such assumptions regarding group formation and action may be rather
suspect, especially the closer one gets to trauma survivors. In addition, the secret
nature of this subject means that traditional behaviouralist methods of data collection
will likely fall far short of reality, although they may show an important partial picture.
The last argument often made with regards to trauma is that, unless the event
was an expressly political act, then the subject does not easily fit within either political
science or political psychology. (Koopman, 1997) A ‘standpoint feminist’ critique of this
would be to claim that all such acts are inherently political, and that a classical liberal
division between ‘public’ and ‘private’ should not stand. One can make another
argument, however, in asserting that trauma has relevance not only with regards to
political implications of behaviour, but that some forms of trauma against children are
political in and of themselves. The following may serve as an example.

Canadian Residential Schools

Lest the previous arguments be seen as overly theoretical or abstract, a

contemporary case example may be made as to how many of the preceding lines of
thought fit together. The destruction of basic social identity, and the political and social
denial of experience are seen in the history of the native residential school system in
Canada. The extent of abuse perpetrated against young native children removed from
their homes, and the denial of such acts by the government and churches (who ran the
schools), have had enormous consequences on the larger social fabric of aboriginals in
Canada. The degree of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse against these children is
such that other aspects of community problems, such as alcoholism, crime, and drug
addiction are often considered mere symptoms of the larger problems of childhood
abuse. (Fournier & Crey, 1997)
A few prefaced remarks should be made with regards to this section. In general,
the abuse perpetrated against native children in such residential schools should not and

16
cannot be removed from the larger considerations of racism and colonialism played out
against native peoples. In this regards, equating the experiences of white middle class
children with those of native children may seem entirely difficult. In some respects, this
is most certainly true. However, it is shown to drive in the point that experiences of
traumatic abuse in childhood cannot be taken out of the context of a larger society and
political system. Whether it is one larger (and more easily identifiable) group of white
Canadians against an aboriginal tribe/nation, or a far less discernible group within one
family, these are actions which should not be removed from the need to see such
actions as more than individual experiences. In the work of Chrisjohn, Young, and
Maraun (1997), such an emphasis is key to their understanding of how the residential
school experience has shaped native societies, and equally how the responsible
authorities have denied it.
The Canadian government started the residential school system in the late
1800s as part of an older effort to assimilate native people into Canadian culture, and
was modeled in part after certain American efforts to the same end. Rather than simply
providing schools in their local areas, authorities sent native children away to school,
separated from their families (including their siblings once at school), not allowed to
speak their own language, and in all other respects removed from their mother culture.
In this way the government and missionaries thought that these children would readily
adopt their new “Canadian-Christian” identity, and would discard their older native
culture when returned to their homes.
The achievement of this goal was mixed, even though by 1930, a full 75 percent
of native children were in such schools. On the one hand, the natives did lose their
older culture and family ties, as they returned home unable to speak the language of
their elders, having been removed from their families for most of their lives, and not
knowing the culture into which they returned. The loss of one culture did not guarantee
the acceptance of a new one, however, and their subsequent adoption of a sense of
“Canadian-ness” was far from successful. Most reported a strong resentment against
the church (which ran the schools), the government (which funded the schools), and the
police and RCMP (who routinely rounded up the children to be taken off to school).

17
Considering the strong and often desperate measures many took to escape from
residential schools, these were not places to foster a sense of well-being. (Fournier and
Crey, 1997)
Reports of the conditions of residential schools (many of which came out in the
1980s and 90s) were shocking, to say the least, and portrayed a picture of widespread
abuse and neglect. Physical punishment was widespread for even the smallest of
“infractions”, such as for those caught speaking their native language, or young women
menstruating. The chronically underfunded schools were negligent in providing food
and shelter, while medical facilities were so scarce that nearly 40 percent of students at
such schools died before they were able to return home (while schools sent others
home to die). (Ibid., 58)
Sexual abuse of children was also known to be widespread, so much so that 80-
95 percent of natives undergoing some form of therapy at native treatment centers
were sexually abused as children. (Ibid., 116) The staff of the schools initially
perpetrated this entirely, but over several generations such violence has been brought
home to the reservations, perpetrated by those who had themselves been abused as
children. Other problems such as domestic violence, drug addiction, and alcohol abuse
also became pervasive. The traumatic experiences of childhood had no place in these
cultures, and were so extensive so as to overwhelm any possible support structures.
These schools were, in essence, ‘total institutions’, and their effects on native societies
and their members were profound. It is worth citing the next passage at some length.

Even those children who found ways to cope, or in some

cases benefit from the school experience, were damaged by
witnessing the abuse of others. Few children escaped with
their cultural identity intact. And the impact on the com-
munities left behind was severe. Displaced from their land,
their villages sometimes literally depopulated of children,
parents were vulnerable to the accelerated social and
economic dissolution that affected virtually all reserves in
Canada. Elders who had no one to receive their wisdom lost
their reason for existence. Children returned home strangers
who could trust no one; far from being “improved,” they were
demoralized, victimized, and often unable to bond with their

18
 families or elders, so that their sad stories stayed locked
within them. (Fournier & Crey, 1997; 62)

These events and conditions were known among administrators at the Ministry of
Indian Affairs, as well as within the churches, themselves, yet neither have accepted
any responsibility for the damage inflicted upon the communities. Rather, the emphasis
is on conceptualizing such actions as having occured in the past, that we all must move
forward now and get beyond the experience. To this end, healing of individuals within
communities is to be emphasized, and blame should be directed solely at individuals
accused of such abuse, lest inquiries become what former Minister of Indian Affairs
Tom Siddon referred to as “witch hunts.” (Chrisjohn, et. al., 1997; 17)
Again, the dynamic of denial rests upon the assumption that in a traumatic
experience, only individuals are harmed, and only individuals are to blame. Little
examination of the larger social and political forces at work is acceptable, for to do so
would open a new series of questions concerning how society approaches victims of
trauma in our societies. Both political science and the government are apt to attribute
rational actions upon the coping mechanisms of residential school survivors, effectively
blaming the victim for behaviour they did not instigate. The focus on individual
pathologies remains strong, even if (as stated above) doing so reinforces feelings of
guilt, shame, and blame upon the victim, while skirting questions of why such
experiences were allowed to happen, in the first place. These latter questions are
inherently political, for they often involve group dynamics and power politics seldom
examined by disciplines such as political science, and often enough ignored even by
psychology.

Conclusion
In the rather extreme case of the native residential schools, the infliction of
trauma was used as much as a political weapon as it had later political effects.
Nevertheless, inasmuch as so many of the processes remain the same between
survivors of trauma, the experience may be considered political regardless of the
context in which it occurred. To categorize childhood sexual, emotional, or physical

19
abuse as a non-political subject is itself a political act. These psychological processes
are also political ones, as the causes and treatment are social, the effects political, and
the outcome is often legal. Most of all, however, the destruction of basic categories of
identity, and the innate inability of many survivors to effectively relate to them, pose
serious questions to the assumptions made in politics. Stock phrases such as
“communitarianism,” “civic virtue,” “patriotism,” and “family values” may have little or
adverse meanings to those whose formative experiences were quite different from
normative expectations.
The role is for political psychology to examine these processes, and to provide
greater insight into how some of our assumptions may be rethought to accommodate
such uncomfortable realities. Unless we can address such topics in wider fora than a
therapist’s office, the possibility of a form of social “reckoning” and healing is unlikely.
Nor can topics of prevention be seriously considered until one examines the wider
context within which such experiences are perpetrated, for both healing and prevention
still focus on the individual (rational) actions of those involved. The first step is in
recognizing that the damage wrought by trauma is far more widespread and deep-
seated than previously recognized or imagined.

20
Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bloom, Sandra. 1997. Creating Sanctuary: toward an evolution of sane societies. New
York: Routledge.

Cairns, Ed. 1996. Children and Political Violence. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.

Cheney, Peter. 1998. “Floodgates open for abuse claims,” The Globe and Mail. June 6,
p. A1

Chrisjohn, Roland, Sherri Young and Michael Maraun. 1997. The Circle Game:
Shadows and Substance in the Indian Residential School Experience in Canada.
Penticton, BC: Theytus Books.

deVries, Marten W. 1996. Trauma in Cultural Perspective: in van der Kolk & McFarlane
(eds.) Traumatic Stress. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 398-413

Elster, Jon. 1993. Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fournier, Suzanne and Ernie Crey. 1997. Stolen from Our Embrace: The Abduction of
First Nations Children and the Restoration of Aboriginal Communities.
Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.

Herman, Judith Lewis. 1992. Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books.

Hoff Sommers, Christina. 1995. Who Stole Feminism? New York: Touchstone.

Hunter, Mic. 1990. Abused Boys- The Neglected Victims of Sexual Abuse. New York:
Fawcett.

Koopman, Cheryl. 1997. “Political Psychology as a Lens for Viewing Traumatic Events.”
Political Psychology, 18, 4, pp. 831-847

Kovaleski, Serge F. 1998. “Stepdaughter Accuses Ortega of Abusing Her.” The

Washington Post, March 14, p. A17

Krystal, Henry. 1988. Integration and Self-Healing: Affect, Trauma, Alexithymia.

Hillsdale: Analytic Press.

Lomawaima, K. Tsianina. 1994. They Called It Prairie Light. Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press.

Matthews, Anne. 1997. Bright College Years. New York: Simon and Schuster.

21
McFarlane, Alexander and Bessel A. van der Kolk. 1996. Trauma and Its Challenge to
Society: in van der Kolk & McFarlane (eds.) Traumatic Stress. New York:
Guilford Press, pp. 24-46

Milburn, Michael and Sheree Conrad. 1996. The Politics of Denial. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

Miller, Alice. 1997. Breaking Down the Wall of Silence. New York: Meridian.

_________. 1994. The Drama of the Gifted Child. New York: Basic Books.

Renvoize, Jean. 1993. Innocence Destroyed: a study of child sexual abuse. London:
Routledge.

Saurette, Paul. 1996. “‘I Mistrust all Systematizers and Avoid Them’: Nietzsche, Arendt,
and the Crisis of the Will to Order in International Relations Theory,” Millennium,
25, 1, pp. 1-28

Showalter, Elaine. 1997. Hystories. New York: Columbia University Press.

Staub, Ervin. 1992. The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group
Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stoltenberg, John. 1990. Refusing to be a Man. New York: Meridian.

Terr, Lenore. 1990. Too Scared to Cry: How Trauma Affects Children...and Ultimately
Us All. New York: Basic Books.

van der Kolk, Bessel A. and Alexander McFarlane. 1996a. The Black Hole of Trauma:
in van der Kolk & McFarlane (eds.) Traumatic Stress. New York: Guilford Press,
pp. 3-23

van der Kolk, Bessel A. 1996b. Trauma and Memory: in van der Kolk & McFarlane
(eds.) Traumatic Stress. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 279-302

_________, 1996c. The Complexity of Adaptation to Trauma: Self-Regulation, Stimulus

Discrimination, and Charaterological Development: in van der Kolk & McFarlane
(eds.) Traumatic Stress. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 182-213

Vobejda, Barbara and Linda Perlstein. 1998. “Girls Close Gender Gap in Ways
Welcome and Worrying,” The Washington Post, June 17, p. A01

Volkan, Vamik D. 1988. The Need to Have Enemies and Allies. Northvale: Aronson.

22