Many historians and cultural theorists argue that we cannot truly understand the effects of cataclysmic events on the course of history unless we posit the existence of collective trauma, a kind of trauma over-and-above the more familiar sort suffered by individuals. This argument relies on a core analogy, which we call the Individual Trauma Analogy (or ITA), drawing parallels between the trauma responses that both individuals and collectives undergo in response to threatening or harmful events.…
Read moreMany historians and cultural theorists argue that we cannot truly understand the effects of cataclysmic events on the course of history unless we posit the existence of collective trauma, a kind of trauma over-and-above the more familiar sort suffered by individuals. This argument relies on a core analogy, which we call the Individual Trauma Analogy (or ITA), drawing parallels between the trauma responses that both individuals and collectives undergo in response to threatening or harmful events. Our primary aim is to make this analogy explicit and plausible. We thus develop an account of collective trauma in which the collective trauma is (a) different in kind from individual trauma, and (b) does not rely on positing the existence of collective minds or mental states. We conclude by addressing the empirical question that remains: Is the ITA an effective guide for social interventions?
