Systemic Interventions for Collective and National Trauma

Theory, Practice, and Evaluation

Michal Shamai

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317485049
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Mental Health in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Systemic Interventions for Collective and National Trauma explains the theoretical basis for understanding collective and national trauma through the concept of systems theory, and gives ways of implementing systems theory in interventions at the micro, mezzo, and macro levels. Particular attention is given to the use of socio-political and cultural aspects of interventions with victims, as well as to the ethical codes that social workers and other mental health professionals need to integrate in their work with collective/national trauma. Separated into two distinct parts on theory and practice, this volume is appropriate for practitioners as well as students in advanced courses.

Part I Theory of Collective and National Trauma

1 Exploring Collective and National Trauma

DOI: 10.4324/9781315709154-1

Defining Collective and National Trauma

I was once at an international conference, where an African American man gave the keynote speech about the impact and legacy of slavery. In response to his question to the audience as to which of them had experienced slavery, most of the African Americans stood up. Much to everyone’s surprise, one white person stood among them, and in answer to the looks of astonishment, he said: “I am Jewish. My ancestors were slaves in Egypt and some were enslaved by the Romans, too.” He was right. African Americans and Jews have a painful history of slavery. Both collectives consider these periods to be an essential part of their past, which has colored their collective and/or national identity, as well as their ongoing existence. Furthermore, both Jews and African Americans perceive this slavery as an evil attempt by others designed to endanger their physical and cultural existence.

I assume that many of my readers will be familiar with the Holocaust, Darfur, 9/11, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. Although referring to different events, all these names describe catastrophes shared by many people, which, like African American and Jewish slavery, frequently remain as lacerations in the historical narrative of the victims’ collectives. Several terms are used to refer to these catastrophic experiences, each emphasizing a different aspect of the event, but pertaining to similar characteristics. Among these terms are “cultural trauma” (Pastor, 2004), “historical trauma” (Brave Heart & De Bruyn, 1998; Brave Heart, 2004), “mass trauma” (Wieling & Mittal, 2008) and “disasters” (Weaver, 1995).

Before describing the meaning of each term, it is important to ask to what extent the events mentioned above may be defined as cultural trauma, historical trauma, mass trauma, or disaster. An interesting attempt to answer this question illustrated the near impossibility of obtaining a definite, clear response (Quaranteli, 1998). Quaranteli quoted a statement made by a United States Supreme Court judge: “I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it” (p. 236). Quaranteli claimed that most people who study disasters, mass traumas, or cultural traumas have somewhat similar opinions regarding their definition. However, a summary of some of the attempts to deal with defining an event as a disaster shows that most answers focused on its consequences. “Mass trauma” was used to refer to a large group of individuals who were exposed to a potential traumatic event, and “cultural trauma” was used to refer to systems such as communities, nations, or cultures. Social and cultural variables often play a part in the consequences of the disaster, and it is, therefore, difficult to differentiate between the nature of the reality and the way it is constructed by the victims, helpers and society (which might, in some cases, be the entire world, researchers, media, etc.).

I agree with the claim that it is difficult to develop a precise definition for an event that can be described as a disaster, cultural trauma, mass trauma, etc., and that, while the event is happening, people are sometimes unaware that it can be defined as such. I agree that the lack of a comprehensive formulation can hinder the study of this phenomenon, but I believe that even in its absence, sufficient knowledge exists to allow us to address different events according to these definitions. Throughout this book, I will present some of the existing knowledge, while emphasizing my view of the formulation of these events thus defined, as well as their impacts and methods of intervention used in these situations. First, however, I will share my perception of those events referred to as disasters, cultural trauma, mass trauma, etc. In conceptualizing the term, I integrate the search for reality—What actually happened? How did it happen? What are the damages?—with the way it is constructed by different systems. Although the search for reality might be difficult, it should not be ignored, as lack of knowledge may lead to the denial of catastrophes due to various political interests, such as the denial of the Nazi Holocaust (Lipstadt, 1994), or of the Armenian Holocaust (Taner, 2006). I also follow Carr’s (1932) claim that a catastrophe becomes a traumatic event when the sense of cultural protection collapses.

Due to the difficulty in formulating the catastrophic event, the various names used reflect some differences in conceptualization and emphasis. Some that are relevant in constructing the subject matter of this book are listed here.

Cultural Trauma

According to Pastor (2004), trauma can be perceived as a “cultural trauma” when people who have the sense of belonging to a collective, such as a state, or an ethnic or religious group, feel that they have been subjected to fearful and painful events, which have left their mark on their collective consciousness and memory. Pastor (2004) claimed that a cultural trauma is a socially constructed process that has an impact not only on the past, but also on the future identity of the collective. Sztompka (2000) identified four characteristics of cultural trauma:

• it occurs suddenly;
• it has particular substance and scope (i.e., it is radical, deep and comprehensive, and touches the core of the culture);
• its origin is clear and is perceived as imposed and exogenous, and
• it is characterized by a specific mental frame (i.e., it is unexpected, surprising, unpredicted and shocking).

Among the events that Sztompka described as potentially creating cultural trauma are: political and social revolutions, terrorists attacks, genocide, extermination, mass murder, forced migration, ethnic cleansing, political assassination, wars, lost wars, the collapse of empire, collapse of a market, or radical economic reform.

Historical Trauma

Brave Heart (2004), who studied the mental health of Native American Indians, named traumatic events that impact a collective or a nation as an historical trauma. She defined historical trauma as cumulative emotional and psychological wounding over an individual’s lifespan and across generations, emanating from massive group trauma experience. According to Brave Heart, the historical trauma response is the constellation of features in reaction to this trauma, which may include depression, self-destructive behavior, suicidal thoughts and gestures, anxiety, low self-esteem, anger, and difficulty in recognizing and expressing emotions. Historical trauma response evolves from unresolved grief that may be considered fixated, impaired, delayed and/or disenfranchised.

Mass Trauma

Landau, Wieling and Mittal (2008) conceptualized mass trauma as an event involving multiple persons, who simultaneously experience, witness, or are confronted with the actual and/or the threat of the death of self or others. Most mass traumas are created by wars, political violence, terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

Disaster

Weaver (1995) suggested the term “disaster” to describe emergencies and crises that involve many people and are considered to be social rather than individual occasions. Weaver claimed that to define an event as a disaster, there must be public agreement regarding the observable damage, social disruption, official disaster declarations and demands for action. As can be seen, the definition of disaster includes an official element, an “official disaster declaration,” which is based on the conceptualization of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA has been operating in the United States since the Congressional Act of 1803 and was the first disaster legislation, formulated in response to an extensive fire in a New Hampshire town (Halpern & Tramontin, 2007). According to FEMA, disasters are

unforeseen and often sudden events that cause great damage, destruction and human suffering. Though often caused by nature, disasters can have human origins. Wars and civil disturbances that destroy homelands and displace people are included among the causes of disasters. (Halpern & Tramontin, 2007, p. 4)

However, the need for an official disaster declaration (Weaver, 1995) is an example of a definition constructed within the Western developed countries, where formal institutions are involved in providing emergent and long-term help for the victim populations. It is important to note that declaring some events as disasters, either by national or international institutions, often depends on irrelevant political factors. Many disasters still leave their mark on populations even though they were not declared as disasters. Some disasters occurred many years before such national and international institutions existed; even today, in many places around the world, such institutions do not exist. Furthermore, in some disaster situations, even the existing national or international institutions cannot offer the necessary help, due to political or organizational issues. Therefore, the non-declaration of an event as a disaster does not mean that it did not happen.

Although some people make the following distinction between disasters and collective trauma—that disasters describe natural catastrophes whereas collective trauma describes the outcome of human-made catastrophes—most of the examples of natural disasters and human-made catastrophes in the literature are placed under the same umbrella (Walsh, 2007); they are referred to as disasters by some authors (Halpern & Tramontin, 2007) and as collective trauma by others (Ainslie, 2013; Pastor, 2004). For example, in their book on disaster mental health, Halpern and Tramontin (2007) mentioned the Holocaust, 9/11 and various natural disasters, whereas Erikson (1978) defined the Buffalo Creek Flood of 1972 as collective trauma. Abramowitz (2005) used this same definition in his article describing the attacks on Guinea by the Sierra Leone Armed Forces, in which war was referred to as collective trauma. The use of both terms to describe similar phenomena does make sense because some of the immediate and long-term results may be similar. I suggest that collective trauma is a more comprehensive term, and is the outcome of a situation that begins with some level of catastrophe (disaster), which may develop into collective trauma. This is based on the severity and duration of the catastrophe and on the available resources of collective coping and rehabilitation, but one of the most important elements is the way it is constructed in the narrative of the specific collective. In this book, I integrate the conceptualization and emphasis described by the different terms into the single term “collective or national trauma.”

Collective or National Trauma

Collective or national trauma is developed through a process that begins with a catastrophic event, such as disaster or mass trauma that causes loss, physical and psychological damage and pain, which have an impact on the entire group and on individuals within the group. The impact creates emotional and psychological wounds that become keystones in the group’s narrative, set of beliefs and identity, as well as those of individuals within the group, across generations. The national and/or collective trauma is a socially constructed process and has an impact not only on the past, but also on the future identity of the group and its individuals. Events that develop into collective or national trauma may have an impact on groups by remaining part of the group narrative, even if the members of the group are coping well with the physical and psychological damage.

According to this definition, the event can be human-made, such as war, terror, or genocide, or caused by nature, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc. The group of people can be defined by religion, race, ethnicity, nation, community, or people living in the same geographical area. Since the terms “collective” or “national” trauma are not operationalized according to diagnostic criteria, as is individual trauma, most studies that explored the impact of collective or national trauma used individual post-trauma measures (Cohen-Silver et al., 2002; Kupelian, Kalayjian & Sanentz, 1998; Pfefferbaum et al., 2005). As defined previously, the nature of collective trauma goes beyond loss and damage, and extends to the entire collective or to the nation as a unit. Thus, when studying a collective trauma, it is important to look for aspects of impacts that also consider the relationships between the subsystems within the collective or nation, and the impact on both present and future collective or national narratives. Observing a collective and national trauma is sometimes difficult, especially among collectives that have the resources and resiliency to cope effectively with the traumatic event. However, the mark left by the event, which might be symbolized by collective or national strength and resilience rather than pain and loss alone, is part of the collective historical narrative and constructs some of the future collective beliefs and decisions.

Some people might ask whether every collective or nation that experiences natural disaster, war or terror attacks will be traumatized. The answer to this question is somewhat complicated. If a collective trauma is conceptualized as individual trauma, it is possible to assume that only a small percentage of the collective’s members will experience it, and most of them will recover after less than a year (Bonanno & Mancini, 2008, 2012). However, collective trauma does not refer only to “symptoms” resulting from a specific event. Collective trauma is an outcome that includes both the collective response to the catastrophic event and the way it is constructed and incorporated within the collective set of beliefs, decisions and behaviors, and the collective narrative. Thus, it is possible to conclude that every potential traumatic event leaves its mark on the collective, to some extent, but the method of coping with the damage caused, and the way it is constructed within the collective narrative—whether it emphasizes coping and resiliency vs. emphasizing only the painful aspects—determines whether the potential traumatic event will develop into collective trauma.

This answer may be followed by another question referring to the use of the word “trauma.” Why it is considered a collective or national trauma and not just an historical event? The use of the word “trauma” implies that specific decisions and sets of beliefs of a collective have evolved from traumatic events. Let us take as an example President Obama’s decision against attacking Syria in 2013 after the Syrian Army used chemical weapons against Syrian non-combatants. This decision seems to contrast the United States’ human rights policy: in 1999, NATO, led by the United States, bombed Serbia for killing Bosnian and Kosovar civilians. Since then, however, the United States has been involved in two wars—in Iraq and in Afghanistan—of which the outcomes were worse than had been expected. Although the entire nation appeared not to feel as traumatized as in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the polls indicated that more than 50% of the population opposed taking military action against Syria. The opposition was based partially on the high cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including deaths of soldiers, as well as physical and mental injuries, and the high financial cost involved. Another source of opposition was strong support of the United States’ isolationist policy, which historically evolved from traumatic events. Some of the opposition came from people who believed that the military action suggested would not be strong enough to end the fighting in Syria. They based this view on past wars in which the United States had been involved. I believe that these types of opposition are indicative of a narrative on which collective trauma has left its mark, despite the collective and national resilience and the ability to cope with past traumatic events. It is possible, therefore, to perceive the intensity of collective trauma on a continuum. One end symbolizes collectives that do not have the necessary resources to cope with traumatic events. The middle of the continuum symbolizes communities that cope well with the consequences of the traumatic event but in which the event remains mostly as a painful part of its narrative. This sometimes leads to collective and/or national beliefs and decisions that are base...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Introduction
• PART I Theory of Collective and National Trauma
• PART II Mental Health and Psychosocial Systemic Interventions in Situations of Collective and National Trauma
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index