“Why are we not talking about the neurological consequences of failed and malicious state responses? If we were really thinking about the brain, shouldn’t that be part of the discourse?” — Allan Wade
Some quotes from the video:
(15:59) The trauma industry sits alongside the colonial code in the helping relations.
(19:30) …brain science is not settled. It has ignored social and environmental responses, culture and context.
(20:56) The initial idea of trauma-talk (“It’s not what’s wrong with you, it’s what happened to you”) has now reverted back to “What happened to you is what’s wrong with you.”
(26:16) Why are we not talking about the neurological consequences of failed and malicious state responses? If we were really thinking about the brain, shouldn’t that be part of the discourse?
Instead, what happens is we look narrowly at an adverse event which is unfortunately now called a trauma. We now don’t talk so much about violence or the nature of the actual event, what we now talk about is trauma. So we’re no longer talking about perpetrator’s actions, we’re talking about inferences in the minds / bodies / brains of people who are victimized. It’s very neat shift in focus from the actions of perpetrators, to the insides of victims.
Once you make that shift, you no longer have to talk about the actions of perpetrators, and the responsibility of failed institutional responses is minimized and reduced. And then the attribution of PTSD or “you have trauma” or “you have anxiety related to trauma” just gets continued unchecked.
So we have a lot more to do in terms of publicising and examining institutional responses.
In what planet does it make sense that lawyers, medical doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, etc., get virtually no training on understanding interpersonal violence, when on the other hand the very same governments are investing so heavily in the trauma discourse? On what planet really does that make any sense at all?
So who’s responsible for deciding that medical doctors don’t need to understand violence? Or that school teachers don’t need to understand violence when 30% of kids transiting the school system will experience violence on their way through, and there’s enough violence on school playgrounds, particularly now that children are inundated with porn violence images.
So who is it that makes the decisions about what curriculums are created for professionals? These are elite educated people who are controllers of our public institutions. They’re not indigenous people.
(53:06) The misuse of psychological testing in the family law arena, where women who’ve been subjected to violence are attempting to protect their kids protective mothers are turned into alienating mothers in about 10 minutes flat. And suddenly somebody who’s been really struggling for a lifetime to find peace and safety and justice, and to raise their kids, is suddenly now “the perpetrator” of violence against their ex-partner who is abusive and their children. So we find the use of psychological instruments and the DSM — all of which stem from the false view that you can understand the suffering of another person without understanding the context of their life.
As soon as you begin to acknowledge that people do resist violence, the basic assumptions of the trauma framework (fight, flight, freeze, dissociate, submit) begin to fall apart like a house of cards: they’re simply not sustainable because they’re not based on any observation about how people actually respond.
Instead of “trauma informed practice,” we advocate for safety informed practices or dignity informed practices.
I think it was in this video that Cathy Richardson said, “There is nothing more violent than systemic violence.”
Kindred System, who contributes this blog, talks about no-touch state violence. The erased mothers who read this blog know what she’s talking about.
Discover more from A Cry For Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Have not listened to the video, but reading the excerpts I am glad to see some of these issues being discussed.
Mostly posting because I’ve been poking at the issues of abuse within the church again, and realizing just how many posts I’ve copied from here over the years. Yours is an encouraging voice and it’s good to know you’re still hanging in there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This comment that Gabor Mate made a while back felt like a twisting. “Trauma Is Not What Happens to You, It Is What Happens Inside.” I cringed the 1st time I heard it. First of all, you have the trauma (s) & then you have the horrible, sometimes life lasting effects & BOTH OF THEM ARE TRAUMATIC, NOT ONE OR THE OTHER!!! ARRGH! (long time sufferer of traumas & finding ways to heal for a long time!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi donna, I modified your screen name a bit for your safety.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another thing I would like to add is what I have heard so many times & that is because of my traumas/violations, etc. that I am strong! I told them NO! That is a LIE! Those traumas destroyed me for many years and I am only stronger due to God’s strength and help and guidance to the right resources/ people, etc. Even the strong ones are still dealing with the left overs of the violence, SA, while they are helping others!
LikeLike
I share your sentiments donna.
Telling a person that she is strong because of the violence and mistreatment she’s suffered from perpetrators and perp-enablers is a glib way of responding to a victim/survivor. Many people who do this think they are being complimentary, but it’s far from a compliment. It often makes a survivor feel like she is still misunderstood, still uncared for, and still alone.
When a person does this to me, I feel that they’re trying to put a positive light on my experiences so that they don’t have to share my pain and they don’t have to join in the activist project to work for systemic change in how society responds to violence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Barbara, thank you for your comment re: ppl making glib, so called complimentary statements about being strong due to the abuse! I agree w/ your reply 100%
LikeLike
Hi donna, thanks so much for your comment! I’m convinced that Gabor Mate is a pseudo-advocate. I’ve always had a bad feeling about him.
You might be interested to know that Fiona Barnett, who is a survivor of ritual abuse, child trafficking, and MK-Ultra said recently that Gabor Mate is a liar who is controlled by the CIA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKIoFk4IiKU&t=4481s
I’m taking a risk in reporting at this blog what Fiona said. Years ago, before Covid, I was sharing Fiona’s work at my personal social media accounts and Jeff Crippen tried to bully me to make me stop. He demanded that I issue a public retraction. When I refused to comply with his demands, he slandered me on the FB page of this blog and many of the blog readers joined in vilifying me. It was hard, but I’ve kept on being true to my conscience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Barbara! I could have written a lot more b/c of that statement & the traumas I’ve suffered. Also, b/c of stupid statements that so called professionals make. My favorite professional is Diane Langburg b/c of her faith & her wisdom & compassion! I’ve heard so many stories of trauma sufferers re: the CIA over & over…it never ceases…more & more people are exposing them re: horrific programming of children! I will look up Fiona Barnett.
LikeLike
Hi donna, you may be surprised to know that I have concerns about Diane Langberg.
She depicts the abuser as self-deceived, rather than as an intentional liar. In my opinion she lets the abuser off the hook too easily. Read more here: “Suffering and the Heart of God” by Diane Langberg — Review by Barbara Roberts
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing about Diane Langberg. I have the book you mentioned but I have not read all of it. I have heard her on videos talk about the abusers in a way I thought she should have. I’ll check on this.
LikeLike
Wow! This really hit home. Bear with me here. So after violence, the experience of violence through a person or system the focus still remains on the victim, how did they cope, handle, precipitate. The real trauma occurs from ZERO accountability of the perpetrators. This is a horrific abuse.
This sent me down another rabbit hole about some other put upon labels that I refused to accept. Such as “Survivor” and “Fighter”. I am NOT a fighter, and I never asked to survive my life, or have to fight for the little I had. Personally for me, these labels seemed like some residual reward for enduring abuse. It’s like I had to wear it as a badge of honor? What these labels told me was “shhh, thanks for playing, now get over it and move on.”
Zero accountability is violence. We all have strength, dignity, love within us and bright futures, why is violence given credit for my outcome? I’m NOT giving violence the credit for my strength. Those experiences of violence within the church did NOT contribute to building me or my children up.
Trauma the word, does not wear me like their cloak.
Basically I’m trying say that if a person or people came to my home and burned it to the ground, and miraculously I saved my children and myself like a true Phoenix rising up from the ashes collecting all my bits and pieces, why? As a woman am I supposed to be GRATEFUL to the experience of violence NOW because I survived it and am now stronger? I am not giving credit to abusers or abusive systems for my resilience and strength just so we do NOT talk about the actual experience and put the focus back where it belongs.
It is so much easier to steer victims into “moving on” than holding abusers and abusive systems accountable. It is easier for the abusers if we just accept our loses and do not try to enforce change.
Thanks for hearing me out. Love you all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said, memphisrayne.
Steering victims into “moving on” makes life easy for the abusers AND the abuser-enablers AND the passive bystanders.
LikeLiked by 1 person