Weaponsing Trauma
It is well established that abused children are more likely to become abusive parents (Friedrich (Friedrich and Wheeler 1982)). This is one example of trauma being associated with traumatizing behaviour (Bentovim et al (Bentovim and Williams 2018)) although many abused children do not grow up to become abusers. The process which leads some to become abusers while others do not is not well understood.
Different individuals and larger groups (ethnic etc.) process trauma differently. Some process it constructively (learning from the experience in order to cope with life in a constructive, adaptive way) but others process trauma in a dysfunctional way. Examples of constructive processing are those who learn from the experience that they managed to overcome the trauma and became stronger (more able to cope with adversities of life and also arrive at an enhanced view of themselves). National groups derive a sense of pride and celebrate their overcoming of abuse, and even celebrate in annual events the overcoming of the abusive experiences. For example national celebrations of liberation from abusive regimes or conclusion of destructive confrontations – battles. These are often events of enhancing national pride – the national sense of self.
Others incorporate the trauma as a reduced sense of self (often erroneously called narcissistic [i] trauma). In terms of behaviour derived or related to such damage to the self are acts of revenge which produce no appreciable benefit to anyone (no benefit to the victim and no change (no benefit) to the abuser either). Such responses are often erroneously called “regressive”. Kernberg pointed out that dysfunctional behaviour, such as similar to that manifest in autism, could not be named as “regressive” as such behaviour (autistic) does not appear in healthy younger individuals (Kernberg 1975). Interestingly, Kernberg against his own advice, uses the term ‘regression’ when he referred to Organisational Leadership (Kernberg 1979). The term regressive should be reserved for behaviours or thinking processes which do exist but in healthy younger persons and not applied to many dysfunctional processes which are alien to healthy younger persons. I would like to propose that such responses are called “dysfunctional”.
Such dysfunctional processes (thinking, feeling and acting) operate in adults who, having been abused and traumatised as children, go on to abuse others when they become adults (and some do so before they reach adulthood). Their abusive behaviour does not redress the harm done to them nor does it heal the trauma they suffered. The child protection and the forensic literature contains numerous examples of such approaches.
The issues of culpability and responsibility for their actions belong to the criminal justice sphere and I will not explore this any further here except to state that the history of abuse of the abuser may, and often should, generate greater sympathy and understanding but cannot absolve one (adult) of the responsibility for their actions.
History contains many examples of trauma to a group of people (ethnic, national and religious groups) becoming abusers after being subjected to abuse. A relatively recent example is the effect of the Treaty of Versailles (Grimshaw 2008) which is considered as a major cause of World War II. The conditions imposed on the German nation then were later (literally) weaponised by the Germans and we all know the result. Volkan has offered an insight into how a traumatic experience of some of such traumatised groups experience the trauma and how they mobilise this as a justification of inflicting trauma on others (Volkan 2001).
The recent events in Israel and Gaza have prompted publications in the GASi Contexts (Borossa 2023, Esquerro 2023)and the Group Analytic Forum. Most importantly, central figures of the GASi (Abramowicz-Chehanovsky 2023)(like past president Robi Friedman) have resigned from the society. This is not an issue that group analysts can ignore. It is painful when raptures like this threaten a learned society and I would like to add some thoughts which, I feel, are consistent with the group analytic thought.
The war in the Middle East is not fought by two nations only. Israel could not fight without financial and military backing from the United States nor could Hamas and Hezbollah fight without similar backing from Iran. The other oil producing nations are not completely inert or impartial. Does that leave the British out? I do not think so. Britain is selling arms to various nations who then use them in the present conflict. Any attempt to threaten these exports, threaten the livelihood of whole towns in the UK.
The situation is not very different in Ukraine. The war is not between Russia and Ukraine only. The EU, the United Kingdom and the USA explicitly support Ukraine but Russia is also supported by China, North Korea and Iran. I am not sure who receives the drones manufactured by Turkey.
Similar conflicts take place in Africa and to a lesser magnitude in the Far East. I am not sure if more countries were involved in the conflict of the war called “The First World War”. The whole world seems to me to be in a state of war even though we do not see soldiers of many nationalities killing each other; citizens of many states play a part in causing death and destruction across the globe. With our taxes, our donations and our elections of the deciding governments, we play our part.
I would risk to propose that blaming Iran or Hamas is just as simplistic as blaming Israel and “the Americans” only. Let us not forget that the UK, France and the USA played a deciding part in shaping the Middle East and giving it the form that it has today. Let us not forget that “the West” had something to do with the instalment of the Shah in Iran and the trauma that he inflicted on his country was not without the backing of some external powers. Of course Iran of today processed its own trauma in a dysfunctional way by developing a regime with its own abusive human rights record.
What does group analysis have to offer in this struggle? The first is to point out that simplistic projections of seeing the “cause” or the “origin” of the present day troubles as being exclusively in “the other” does not do justice to the complexity of the present reality. The second is to use the concepts of “matrix” and “context”. Understanding of the fighting between neighbours without the wider context does not reflect the complexity of the present reality nor does it form a step towards a resolution.
Does any direct group analytic intervention have a hope of bringing about a change? I doubt it. Admirable though conciliatory efforts like the Israeli/Palestinian orchestra are, they have not prevented today’s disaster. I will use the relative role of Iran and Hamas only as an illustration without implying that the trouble in the area is only caused by the Islamic participants. Without the Palestinians feeling abused by Israel, Iran would not have been able to use them by supplying arms and funds to them. Without Iran having an anti-American and anti-Israeli agenda Hamas would not have been able to extract support from it. A similar argument can be made about Israel and the USA.
As the agents who are directly involved (the Israeli citizens – Arabs and Jews) are not likely to resolve their differences, is there hope that a greater organisation may succeed? The United Nations (and its predecessors) were established with this in mind but neither its predecessors avoided the Second World War nor the present UN prevented the present conflict. It has not even succeeded in enforcing a cease-fire! The member nations exchange accusations and ignore its resolutions. I am limited to sharing with you my sadness at the pessimistic process. How did the Second World War End? With total destruction and millions of deaths. Do we need to reach the same conclusion?
I am afraid that our current trend of weaponising trauma leads us to repeat history and as each subsequent war brings greater destruction and greater loss of life I dread to think how the present conflicts will conclude.
References
Abramowicz-Chehanovsky, R. e. a. (2023). “Open Letter from Israeli Colleagues to GASi Members and Members’ Responses.” Contexts(102).
Bentovim, A. and B. Williams (2018). “Children and adolescents: victims who become perpetrators.” Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 4(2): 101-107.
Borossa, J., Burman, E., Dizadji, F., Harte, V., Shelhi, R. (2023). “Group Analysts for Palestine – GAP. Statement in Solidarity with Palestine.” Contexts(102).
Esquerro, A. (2023). “Israel v Palestine: Terror and Unresolved Collective Trauma?” Contexts(102).
Friedrich, W. N. and K. K. Wheeler (1982). “The abusing parent revisited: a decade of psychological research.” J Nerv Ment Dis 170(10): 577-587.
Grimshaw, A. (2008). ” The Treaty of Versailles: The Major Cause of World War II.” lemoyne. edu/Portals/11/pdf_content/library/101paper. pdf.
Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. New York:, Jason Aronson.
Kernberg, O. F. (1979). “Regression in Organisational Leadership.” Psychiatry 42(1): 15.
Volkan, V. D. (2001). “Transgenerational transmission and chosen trauma: An aspect of large-group identity.” Group Analysis 34,: 179–197.
Jason Maratos is a Group Analyst and a Psychiatrist. He has retired from clinical practice after 30 years in the NHS and more than 20 privately. His last publication is “Dynamic Consultations with Psychiatrists” published by Wiley.
[i] Erroneously narcissistic as it equates the notion of narcissism with the concept of self. Damage to the self is not something that happens to an already pathological structure, such as narcissism.