Posted by InsideOut on June 25, 2009, at 2:50:42
In reply to Re: trauma and healing, posted by onceupon on June 25, 2009, at 0:16:12
To laconically articulate Caruths trauma theory is to say that trauma is the unspeakable and the unrepresentable. Author Whitehead and Caruth both understand trauma as a haunting. Caruth writes to be traumatized is precisely to be possessed by an image or an event (1995). When I can across this, that trauma is the unspeakable and the unrepresentable I became incredibly despondent in therapy. It felt as if my attempts at finding language to express the trauma, with the hope of certain healing, were useless, that there was no hope I, yet again, felt overwhelming despair at the futility of this life. With time I began to believe that it should not be disavowed that perhaps it is not alone the concern of narrating the unnarratable but so too discovering narrative space to discuss the undiscussable. I found respite from my despair in truly believing that language does, eventually, attend to the experiences of trauma and that therapy gives me time and space to find the words to my personal discourse of trauma. There may be a pause that seeks eloquence in words that will narrate that, which resists narrartivisation, but language does attend to and articulate trauma. And it is language that allows healing as it is that which lends to understanding and perhaps, one day, to a hint of acceptance.
poster:InsideOut
thread:902975
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20090614/msgs/903099.html