I still think about trauma these days, although I tend to think more about the anxiety spectrum. There is afterall, something very fetishized or at least, detached about anxiety. Anxiety is not an emotion oriented towards something present, but rather, is future oriented. Anxiety is our fear of the future. It is a ghost fear, a fetish fear, it is at once less present yet more pervasive than fear itself. It is fear intellectualized, no, grotesquely magnified beyond reason by a reason derailed.
Modern society has no roots, no history, no grounding. We drift in a perpetual freefall, this strange sensation of exhilaration, panic, and numbed boredom, that tight feeling in our chests, the wind in our faces. The dream and the nightmare of the modern man, his most deepest desire and most fervent fear, that which lies below our perverse fusion of lust, anxiety and reason, is the belief that he might actually be falling into something…
+ + +
Original Title: of psychoids, modernity and trauma
Original Post Date: December 1, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
There’s a new body of discourse peaking over the horizon and it smells surprisingly numinous. It’s the intersection between modernity, science, psychology and suffering: trauma, or “traumatology” as it is sometimes called.
While the idea of trauma is nothing new, more recent developments in understanding its causes, symptoms and treatments are starting to lead us back to a reintegration of spirit into matter, matter into spirit. It’s using kickass scientific methods to retrace and revive alternative concepts about how the body functions and more importantly, it’s providing models and a language by which modern society can begin to approach the mind-body and rethink Cartesian dualism.
Because let’s face it, you can talk all you want about the Qabalah or chakras or initiation or shamanism and what’s going to happen? Exactly what you see now: appropriation, commercialization, bastardization, distraction. All too often, this desire to get out of our modern skins, to deny ourselves, results in a typical modern reaction to spirituality: to fetishize and escape. Our attempts to connect with the unconscious and the numinous become a pursuit rooted in a vaguely colonialist mentality reserved for the privileged, the educated, the developed etc. We become trapped in fantasies and projections of the Other (usually ancient cultures and religions) or ultimately, we are led back to precisely what we originally tried to purge ourselves of: the present, the current, the now, the modern condition of our ruthless capitalist logic, our vapid commercial culture and our traumatized selves. And while this rejection of the present might very well work for those with the leisure time, education level and the money to pursue alternative ways of being spiritual, what meaning can any of this trendy and oft imported enlightenment, occultism or mysticism have on those for whom the pressures of capitalist development weigh the most heavily?
Robert Scaer’s radical conclusion is that “virtually everyone in a modern society is traumatized.” [1] What we need is a mind-body discourse generated within modernity, perhaps even endemic to modernity. If there is one thing virtually all modern people share, regardless of class and the triumvirate of identity politics (gender, race and sexual orientation), it is trauma. The idea that trauma can only be sustained through direct and extreme cases like torture, rape, military combat etc is becoming a thing of the past. For even the most socially privileged cannot be immunized against the experience of trauma. The widely held belief that material wealth is enough to stave off the negative effects of trauma is glaringly inadequate. Besides, we’ve always known this to be true. The conception of modern life as one marked by disassociations and disconnectedness is nothing new.
Even today’s “cutting edge” treatments for trauma are not really. In addition to the old school cerebral talk therapy approach to catharsis, we also had psychologist and Marxist Wilhelm Reich (another one of Freud’s intellectual exes) who developed a somatic approach to healing. Reich recognized posttraumatic stress in his patients and called the somatic symptoms “body armour”. Significantly, he linked this physical rigidity to a subtle energy he believed he discovered called “orgone” which moved through circuits up and down the spine. Sound familiar? What he also pointed out was how insidious somatic blockages could be to the psychological health of the individual. Any researcher in PTSD knows how debilitating the symptoms of shutting down and disassociation can have on all spheres of life, especially the emotional and psychological. Reich took this one step further and suggested that entire societies could function according to the logic of trauma, or more accurately, posttraumatic stress.
There is so much more I want to write and discuss about treatments for PTSD and trauma in general but I think I’ve said enough for now. Let me be clear in that I don’t think traumatology is some revolutionary belief system that’s going to enlighten the masses. I don’t think it’s going to help solve the mind-body problem and I don’t think introducing the mind-body continuum model into the scientific world is going to either. What I do know is that it’s a step in the right direction.
With that I’ll leave you with an article and an interview about trauma from UTNE magazine. There are some platitudes, but there also are some gems that make them worth the reading:
+ + +
Benjamin Steele’s response to this post, with some more interesting quotes.
Oculus divinorum v.4 
June 10, 2009 at 9:53 am
Thank-you for this very insightful blog—–so many of us are in the ” walking-wounded ” emotional state…….appearing to be ” fine” to the outside world, but carrying enormous spiritual traumas within. Time this was brought out into the open and acknowleged….and not simply shrugged off or treated with pill-popping.
June 14, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Thanks, Ping. If you haven’t already read the UTNE articles (links at the end of this post), you’ll probably enjoy them.
October 2, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Nice article!
It makes me think of certain people: Arnold Mindell, Paul Shepard, Derrick Jensen, etc. I’m also reminded of someone like Carl Jung.
Both Jung and Reich were students of Freud and also both were interested in the significance of UFOs in terms of society. Jung saw UFOs as a symbol of change, of potential. UFOs became popular during a very traumatic era of world history.
I mention all of those people because they either have an alternative view on trauma or they see the problems of modern life as being part of a larger context. Paul Shepard would trace the problems of society back to the beginning of civilization. Along with Derrick Jensen, Shepard would say our traumatized state isn’t merely personal nor merely an issue of our human condition but instead about our relationship to the larger world.
That is where I see the ideas of Jung and Mindell fitting in as they present humans as being essentially interconnected. The problems of society can be seen in the individual, and vice versa.
I would add that, similar to Shepard’s view, the Axial Age was a particularly traumatic shift in society. That was the historical period when cultures were clashing and urbanization was developing.
The foundation of the modern self was being set at that time. For example, religious practitioners of the time were attracted to a rootless lifestyle with ascetic monks and preachers who would travel from town to town. Also, this is when people started idealizing a perfect world that was located elsewhere. This world and human nature was flawed.
It seems to me that the industrial age and the 20th century international conflicts are the delayed effects of the Axial Age. The ideals of that time (equality, freedom, etc.) took a couple of millennia to fully take hold. But humans have never really adapted to this social change in a healthy way and maybe it isn’t even possible. The human animal simply isn’t designed for modern civilization.
Of course, people are traumatized. All of human society is traumatized.
October 3, 2009 at 12:05 am
[…] } on anxiety & modernity by isthmus […]
October 4, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Thanks for posting your thoughts, Benjamin. I’ve never heard of Mindell, Shepard, or Jensen, I’ll have to add them to my ever growing reading list! There are a lot of parallel discourses in our history that have helped us separate mind-body, self-other, etc. But historically, those discourses also provide you with ways to put them back together. Modern people seem to still be struggling toward creating such symbols and narratives, like UFOs, that are meaningful and lasting.
October 5, 2009 at 12:54 am
You’re welcome, isthmus. I’m glad that my thoughts fit in with your own. I sometimes like to throw out names in order to fish for like-minded people. I’m always curious about what authors other people read and what they think about them.
Ever growing reading list? I’ve got one of those.
What you say about parallel discourses sounds interesting. When are you going to blog about it? :)
As for UFOs, this past year I started looking more into the phenomenon. There are some very fascinating books on the topic of UFOs which discuss the religious impulse and archetypal patterns. If you want an intelligent introduction to the history of UFOs and their possible interpretations, there probably is no better place to start than Jacques Vallee (a good balance of intelligence and imagination). Have you read much in the field of UFO research?
October 7, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I haven’t read much in terms of UFO phenomena, although I’ve read cursory references to Jung. What discourses do those authors you’ve mentioned publish in?
Parallel discourses, I’m sure I don’t have much to say about them that hasn’t already been written by others. I’m referring to the mind-body divide, Humanism, influence/development of Christian thought, philosophers of the Enlightenment (Locke and so on), etc.
October 8, 2009 at 12:38 am
“What discourses do those authors you’ve mentioned publish in?”
Are you asking me about all of the authors I mentioned? If so, they write in various fields. But all of them write about human experience.
The UFO angle relates in that it demonstrates the commonality of paranormal experience across cultures and across the centuries. You can’t get very far into mind-body questions without bringing up subjects such as religion, spirituality, and the paranormal.
“Parallel discourses, I’m sure I don’t have much to say about them that hasn’t already been written by others.”
So, you don’t feel you have any unique perspective or insight about anything? I doubt that is the case.
“I’m referring to the mind-body divide, Humanism, influence/development of Christian thought, philosophers of the Enlightenment (Locke and so on), etc.”
That is generally the type of thing that interests me, but maybe I come at it from a different direction. Are you familiar with integral theorists such as Ken Wilber or Enactivist theorists such as Gregroy Bateson and Francisco Varela? I wrote about this subject a while back.
http://benjamindavidsteele.gaia.com/blog/2008/8/enactivism_integral_theory_and_21st_century_spirituality
In that post, I reference George P. Hansen. He wrote a very interesting book titled The Trickster and the Paranormal. He discusses in great detail these topics in the context of religion, psychology, and science.
As for Christianity’s influence, I’ve been heavily influenced by Carl Jung and Philip K. Dick. Both wrote about religion in terms of philosophy and both were influenced by Gnostic ideas.
I’m not sure where your thinking might connect with my own. Which authors and traditions do you consider most influential on your own worldview?
October 12, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Ah, I was asking about the authors you mentioned in your earlier comment (Arnold Mindell, Paul Shepard, Derrick Jensen). I’m afraid that I’m also not familiar with any of the writers you’ve mentioned save Jung and Philip K Dick!
I wouldn’t say these are the only influences on my worldview, but in terms of theory, my background is depth psychology, neurology, continental theory, comparative literature, and western occultism. In regards to the last topic, I’m referring to older writers like Eliade, Regardie, etc. I generally do not find more modern, New Age writing attracts me save from a historical perspective.
And no, I wouldn’t say that I don’t have any insights into anything lol. What I meant is that there are *many* writers who have spent their lives researching and refining their thought on such topics whereas I am not so focused on them and am not interested in writing about them at the moment in a way that does the subject justice as it were.
October 13, 2009 at 1:55 am
Okay. What discourses do Mindell, Shepard and Jensen publish in?
Mindell was originally educated in physics, but was later trained in depth psychology and seems to have something of a transpersonal psychology slant to his ideas. He has his own school where he teaches his methods and he has worked as a group facilitator. His ideas and methods emphasize relationships social roles.
Shepard was an environmentalist, but I’m not exactly sure what his education was in. He wrote about evolutionary theory and developmental psychology, anthropology and social psychology, language and cognition.
Jensen had an education in mineral engineering physics and creative writing. He is an environmentalist with a similar focus as Shepard, but Jensen has become more of an activist in recent years. Jensen is more focused on the socio-political and sociological factors of contemporary society.
I’m glad to hear you’re familiar with Philip K. Dick, a personal hero of mine. From what you list, it seems we study in the same general area of ideas. I grew up in a New Agey church and so maybe I’m more accepting of all that. I love alternative thinkers and the weirder the better.
Are you familiar with Robert Anton Wilson and Terrence McKenna? Do you ever listen to Coast to Coast AM (either with its present host of George Noory or it’s past host of Art Bell)?
In your last comment, you say you’re not focused or interested in being focused on certain topics right now. So, what topics are you focused on right now?
October 14, 2009 at 9:26 pm
lol, I never noticed this little “reply” link before.
As for Philip K Dick, I find his experience of reliving a past life (??) as a Christian in Roman times fascinating, although I’ve never read whether it really happened or not. Did you ever see this letter?: http://www.thephildickian.com/images/philipkdick/philip_k_dick_letter7574_3.jpg
I’ve heard of Wilson, McKenna and Bell and am a little familiar w/McKenna’s work, although I can’t say I’ve tried to read him further.
Topics I’m into right now? It’s not really subject matter for this blog, but I’m interested in political theory and Giorgio Agamben and Hannah Arendt are at the top of my reading list. I’m also interested in managerial theory but from that political perspective. How about you?
October 15, 2009 at 1:10 am
I believe you can change the settings so it allows different number of replies after a comment. Right now, it’s only set for two comments.
I’ve read every available biography of PKD along with much of his nonfiction writing. I know of the Roman vision he had. I think he took it seriously or as serious as he took anything.
I haven’t read many of his letters, but I’m somewhat familiar with that particular letter. I don’t know if I’d read it before or just read about it. I like how that letter demonstrates his personality. He didn’t just accept weird experiences. He always sought out the truth of the matter. It might end up disappointing, but the search is always worthwhile.
I’m not well versed in political theory. I don’t think I’ve heard of Giorgio Agamben, but I’ve come across Hanna Arendt’s name a number of times (can’t remember the context). Managerial theory from a political perspective? What exactly is that?
It almost sounds interesting. It would probably interest my dad. He recently retired from his position as a professor in business management and I suppose there might be some similar managerial ideas in politics and business. But it isn’t exactly my thing. I might find it interesting from a psychological/socioligical perspective.
The managerial subject reminds me of something George P. Hansen wrote about. He was discussing scientific research and hierarchical institutions in terms of why parapsychology research isn’t welcome in the mainstream and probably never will be. He referred to Hartmann’s boundary types which is a fairly stable psycological trait. He pointed out that thick boundary types are less likely to have or to be open to unusual experiences but they’re the most likely to be promoted in hierarchical organizations such as research institutions.
How about me? Oh, I have my regular interests which I blog about: Christianity, Gnosticism, media, psychology, and whatever catches my attention at the moment.
I’ve recently been looking into tv personas and political pundits, and looking at demographic data about libertarians and conservative Christians… with some focus on Glenn Beck. Also, I’ve been looking at theism, atheism, and agnosticism; philosophical skepticism, pseudo-skepticism, and science; and the differences between the rational and non-rational in terms of psychology, spirituality, and the paranormal.
As for reading, I’ve read some PKD novels recently and have been reading graphic novels by Grant Morrison, Alan Moore, and Neil Gaiman. I just finished PKD’s The Man in the High Castle and I’m just now finishing Morrison’s The Invisibles. In the last few months, I’ve also been reading about neo-noir and genre fiction as it relates to philosophy, religion, and the imagination… and thrown in with that I was reading some books on UFOs and other Fortean topics.
I just go where ever my curiosity leads me.
October 23, 2009 at 9:13 am
Sorry for the delayed reply, I’ve been pretty occupied! I’ve been reading managerial theory straight (as in what business execs read) but wondering how that compliments the processes of democracy and also yes, how group psychology and dynamics work etc. It seems to me incredibly challenging for a diverse group of people to coordinate their actions towards a common goal whether that’s working for an organization or being an active citizen. The fact that humans can work together to create organizations or structures that last decades, never mind hundreds of years astounds me at times.
October 24, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Yeah, the social side of humans is quite fascinating. We tend to only notice when social order breaks down, but it’s more interesting to consider why the impulse towards organization is so common in the first place.
The weird part is that largescale organization as developed in modern civilization seems completely unnatural to most of human evolution. I suppose this connects back with the topic of this blog.
Have you read about Max Weber’s ideas of rationalization and bureaucratization? I first came across a detailed analysis of Weber’s ideas in George P. Hansen’s writings, but I haven’t read anything by Weber.
November 7, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Sorry for the long delay in replying! Yes, there also is really something unusual not just about organizing, but the manner in which modern ppl think about organizing which is usually top down, hierarchical, with power concentrated in one unified locus be it a dictator or “the people”, etc. I think we are beginning to see major changes in that though. An interesting talk on this shift: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html
I have not read Weber extensively but it’s pretty difficult not to when reading political theorists!
July 21, 2010 at 9:42 am
[…] long time ago, almost 4 years to be precise, I wrote about the need for people to develop endemic ways of addressing the psychological and existential crises o…. This meant to me, moving beyond the colonialist model of appropriating and fetishizing the […]
January 16, 2012 at 11:32 am
[…] Something I wrote awhile ago now makes more sense to me now in which I described modern life as living in a perpetual free fall. The dream and the nightmare of the modern man, his most deepest desire and most fervent fear, that which lies below our perverse fusion of lust, anxiety and reason, is the belief that he might actually be falling into something… Emptiness is not a void. If you wipe out all your plans, your narratives, your goals, if you radically embrace contingency, there is something else. I’m not sure what to call it. A different mode of being perhaps. […]