Re-traumatization

The older I get the more I recognize two realities that had largely escaped me earlier: (1) the prevalence of mid-life trauma and (2) what I call a 're-traumatization' of these same trauma sufferers. The former is rather widely recognized, but the latter has no agreed-upon definition and, in my judgment, hasn't been well described or understood. My purpose is to focus on the process, effects and survival of re-traumatization.

Trauma

First: a brief word on trauma. Most discussions I have read differentiate between trauma and the normal losses incident to life. While precise calibration is impossible, trauma includes incidents that are psychologically and physically life-threatening, while a "normal" loss might be divorce, death of an older relative or the unexpected loss of a job. Let's go with this distinction for now.

I run through my mental rolodex and find many trauma sufferers: friends who have lost children to suicide, have been bilked of their life savings by unscrupulous financial advisors, have lost the family breadwinner in an automobile accident, have had their children almost summarily taken away from them by the action of the state. In addition to the stinging immediate impact of these losses, my friends have suffered feelings of grief, hopelessness, despair, fits of isolation and, often, judgmental, unsupportive or distant family members and friends.

But what I have also found, in nearly every case, is that people who are traumatized make bad decisions. They make bad decisions in at least two or more of the basic life categories that define, and sometimes confine, our lives: finances, children & family, interpersonal relationships, treatment of health problems, work, planning for the future. Traumatized people make bad decisions because their judgment has been impaired by trauma: they often don't know whom to trust, how to evaluate their remaining resources or how to spend the appropriate amount of time on issues tha even those of us who aren't in the midst of trauma find daunting.

Re-traumatization

The cumulative weight of bad decisions prepares the way for the reality of re-traumatization. Normally when this term is used, writers mean one of two things: (1) the power of current life experiences to "trigger" earlier traumas, such as a minor robbery recalling a major robbery/beating trauma from earlier days; or (2) the increased vulnerability to new traumas simply because we have already experienced one. I call this second explanation the "sprained ankle" view of trauma: one sprain makes you more easily susceptible to a second one.

Though both of these experiences certainly are real, and are legitimate contenders for the word "re-traumatization," my approach is to see re-traumatization as a sort of living dialogue with and failed attempt to deal with the first trauma. We are traumatized, and we lose our balance and perspective. But life goes on and decisions still need to be made. We make decisions, and they are almost always bad ones. We don't realize the effects of our new decisions immediately, but usually within a few years to a decade we begin to suffer the effects of these decisions.

An example: you suddenly lose someone of great value to yourself. People often swoop in to help. You renew some relationships and make new ones. You pursue some of those relationships because some of these people helped you out of your morass. But, these relationships are often one-sided--people have provided you help in your moment of need, but when you aren't in your crisis, you realize (or maybe you don't), that the relationship is doing you no good. It only survives because the person assumes you need to be rescued, coddled, controlled, guided. You must be infantalized or subordinate if the relationship is to continue, but you don't have the wherewithal to cut it off or challenge the people who "saved" you. But, if you are to grow, you often need to cut out of your life the same people who helped put your life back together. You need to go through the new trauma of a dissolved relationship. This is what I call the experience of "re-traumatization"--you need to throw off the thing that arguably has been good for you in order that you can become a more complete person.

My experience is that the trauma of throwing away that which arguably has been good for you at one time is more difficult and more immobilizing even than the first trauma. Time tends to make the first trauma a little less intrusive, even though visions of the loved one coming through the door continue to visit the left-behind beloved. Yet, very little prepares us for the realization that the foundation we have tried to build upon in our post-traumatic life needs, once again, to be destroyed. Maybe "healthy" relationships will never be possible again; perhaps the financial decisions made in the wake of a death and insurance settlement will have so crippled a person that nothing remains; perhaps your vulnerability was taken advantage of by an unscrupulous partner/lover/'friend,' and you won't be able to trust another again.

Conclusion

Whereas a trauma is, by definition, usually a more sudden event or series of quickly recurring events, re-traumatization is more of a continuous process. Identifying the types of decisions made after trauma, as well as a stark realization that many of these decisions are harmful, corrosive or debilitating, is hard to do because most people want to "tread softly" on the turf of those who have greatly suffered. But clear-headed thought and heart-felt action towards re-traumatized people should be the focus of counselors, teachers, pastors and others who serve people in their deepest needs. What is needed is courage on the part of serving professionals and friends, clarity of thought to know which questions can help the re-traumatized person, and lots of patience to bear with the struggles of those who have had their lives shattered. Perhaps many people will never get better. But maybe some will. And that, alone, is reason for a special focus on dealing with the confusion of re-traumatization.

4325