There are many ways to define trauma. A working definition with which many psychologists agree nowadays is that we find every event potentially traumatic if it was “too much, happened too early and fast” for our nervous system and psychological apparatus to process and overcome it.
When we talk about trauma caused by some form of abuse or neglect during childhood or adolescence, we are dealing with what psychologists call “developmental trauma.” Developmental traumas are repeated unpleasant or very hurtful experiences which we had experienced earlier in life in interaction with people who took care of us in a certain way (parents, teachers and other guardians).
When a person who carries out abuse (violent behavior that a person uses to gain or maintain power and control over another person or people) is someone close to the young person and whom they may have trusted, the person inevitably faces great pain, shock, disbelief at first and internal conflict. If this act was preceded by a different type of relationship where the person believed they felt safe or there was a certain emotional attachment, the young person is faced with the thought that the person they trusted is suddenly a person who has the power and intention to endanger them psychologically, and perhaps physically or even to threaten their life integrity. Experiences that bring this amount of shock to our perception of reality have the potential to shake our confidence in our own (previous) assessments, as well as the entire psychological reality. The leap from security to the perception of vulnerability within the same relationship is irreconcilable, especially if it happens suddenly, and it is challenging to bring order and meaning to such an experience.
Another important reaction which often accompanies this type of experience is what psychologists call a “freeze state” or a state in which I experience danger, and at the same time I do not see how I can “fight” it or “flight” from it. Such a paralyzing condition is partly a response of our nervous system, which can be known to a much lesser extent from situations in which we were both scared and “stuck” for a few moments, not knowing how to react to the perceived danger.
If such an experience lasts for a few seconds, our “freeze state” can last. If traumatic experience repeats, and we still do not experience the options of “escape” and “fight” (or it happens too suddenly for us to see these options), we often apply the psychological mechanism of dissociation, which is protective in these situations because it allows us to be psychologically absent from the present moment in which the painful experience repeats itself. In a way, we temporarily “break the connection” with a painful experience to survive it because we often do not have a better tool.
Simply put, a child or young person usually faces two alternatives on the psychological level: to reconcile the two opposing conceptions of the adult in question, or to remain silent, in pain and helpless. If we want to understand why someone has chosen for themselves, from our perspective, an unfavorable alternative (such as remaining silent, in pain and helplessness), the only way we can do that is to understand which alternatives that person had at their disposal, to look at them from their perspective at a given moment with all the consequences experienced. Clearing the psychological path in which I find a safe space to give voice to my painful experience is a demanding process for most people. There is almost always confusion, fear, helplessness, guilt and shame on that path, and often other peoples’ inner voices that make one silent, criticize, humiliate and intimidate.
Whether a person will develop a post-traumatic stress disorder due to traumatic stress is a question in which the resilience of the young person and early interventions of the people around them play a significant role. Namely, according to the current diagnostic criteria, only if the traumatic stress lasts for more than four weeks can we probably classify it as a disorder. The sooner a trauma survivor experiences that it is safe to talk about their experience in at least one relationship, the less likely they are to develop their stress into a post-traumatic stress disorder and the more likely they are to process the experience in a constructive and empowering way.
We could even say that sometimes it is more dangerous than the trauma itself that no one around us believes that we survived the trauma, that they minimize it, that they ridicule or trivialize it. If we are an adult, we may shift the responsibility to those who are untrustworthy. If we are a child, we will trust adults and we will doubt ourselves.
In that sense, our personal and joint contribution to create a safe space in our close relationships for people to share their painful experience is of great importance, even when they will not lead a deeper conversation with us. It is safe when, on the other hand, someone has good intentions, they are interested in listening and understanding what we are talking about means to us. It is safe when we know we are not alone. And most importantly – it is never too late to find at least one person with whom it is safe to talk about a topic that once threatened our safety. Sometimes that one person is necessary for us to feel that something can be done with that experience.
Original (in Serbian language) published on psychology blog Psihobrlog