Trauma in Context: A Culturally Informed Understanding of Trauma
February 2025 GLC Monthly Learning Call Brief
“That was so healing to hear” was the response from GLC member Adrian Alexander from Free The Slaves, Trinidad and Tobago, to Dr Courtney Skierra-Vaughn’s excellent presentation on Trauma in Context. We think this statement strongly reflects the relevance and value of the learning brought to our community this month. The knowledge and insights from Dr Skierra-Vaughn’s many years of work in the counter-trafficking sector and her research and teaching on issues of reintegration and cultural understandings surrounding trauma, healing, and resiliency offers fascinating new perspectives. These can undoubtedly aid our efforts to address the harms of trafficking for the individuals and communities we work with.
We have a community that values conversation and one in which we can ‘turn over stones’, as we engage in learning and dialogue that leads to change and action within ourselves and our work. And in this month’s learning calls stones have definitely begun to be turned, and as we continue to do so we are more likely to find hidden gems.
The learning was highly theoretical although very accessible and altogether fascinating, with many helpful illustrative explorations and examples, gently challenging our current understanding of trauma as a universal experience across cultures. Dr Skierra-Vaugh also stressed that this learning is just ‘scratching the surface’ and a starting point for further exploration. It is not the totality of the subject and in no way is intended to invalidate or detract from any good work and approaches already developed and implemented in our trauma-informed care. It can however be included as another building block of knowledge that we can use to reflect on our existing understandings and methods to improve where possible and necessary if we see the need.
The discussion on the Eastern call saw us diving into the different types of communal trauma and methodological questions of how we start to bring this new knowledge into our work. Dr Skierra-Vaugh provided some helpful possible routes of enquiry, as the discussion also seemed to percolate on the idea of entering into communities with gentle and humble curiosity which would make space for experiences to be framed in a community’s own words rather than any external definitions.
The discussion in the Western call carried through some similar questions, as well as wrestling with the delicate balance of how to support survivors through their trauma without affecting an ingrained victimhood. There was a broader collective reflection on what potentially the West has lost, in terms of communally oriented support tools and structures for when bad things happen, being a more generally individualistic culture and perhaps one with a worldview which includes the notion that ‘bad things don’t happen to good people’. (The GLC also recognises that ‘the West’ is not a single homogenous cultural group with a homogenous experience of reality).
What we learned on the calls
The difference between stress and trauma: stress is natural human response which is a personal experience based on how an individual subconsciously evaluates a situation and whether or not they have the tools and resources to deal with an event or situation. Trauma is at the far end of the stress spectrum, the result of the evaluation of the stressful event/situation as being something which the individual does not have the tools or resources to deal with, along with what is seen as the key factor that tips stress into trauma, which is fear, usually fear that one's life is in danger or the life of a loved one.
Trauma response is a normal human response to a very intense situation or event: as a normal human response, trauma itself should not be pathologised or labelled as abnormal or as a mental health disorder. As a normal human response, trauma is something that can be processed, moved through and resolved, just as a physical wound would undergo a healing process. Additional support may be required for some who for various reasons this process does not resolve the trauma after a period of time.
Both the experience of and the process of resolving trauma are culturally bound: this is the crux of the matter, for those of us who work cross culturally. This means we as humans understand our experiences and respond to them based on what is normative according to our respective cultures. Dr Skierra-Vaughn provided several examples of normative culturally bound behaviour and responses to frame our understanding of how different cultures experience, express and move through stress and trauma differently. (There was not enough time in this session to delve deeper into aspects of stress and trauma when it becomes maladaptive, meaning when the trauma is unable to be processed and moved through effectively, which can happen in any context, leading to more complex mental health challenges. This requires further exploration and learning and we have it on our possible future call list.)
The importance of language in understanding trauma: as a formative component of culture, language shapes the perception, interpretation, understanding and experience of the world shared by the speakers of that language. Dr Skierra-Vaughn shared the example of the Himba people of Namibia, who have different words for colours than English but also group some colours together, and in research studies Himba participants did not identify the same differences in groups of colours as English speakers when presented with examples. This illustration helped to illuminate how language can shape perception of the world. Herein, language also influences the way a person experiences, understands and responds to stressful or traumatic events, for which other examples were highlighted.
What are the implications?
Dr Skierra-Vaughn shared in her presentation that of the research done on trauma, 87% has been done in high income countries, with only 5% conducted with a collaborator from a middle or low income country, while only 17% of the world lives in high income countries. This data alone makes the implications for the field of trauma-informed care in diverse cross cultural contexts is clear. We need to know and understand more, as at present we do not have a clear enough picture of the diversity of experiences and effective interventions. The risks are of importing and attempting to use solutions that might simply be ineffective, or worse, wholly counterproductive. At the very least the research points towards the necessity for greater curiosity. By acknowledging that while we know a lot there is also a great deal we don’t know, we can more easily position ourselves in a stance of curiosity which can lead to surprising new knowledge.
What we see for the GLC
We are keen to explore who in the community has insights of having culturally contextualised psychosocial interventions, methods and approaches. So as an initial ‘what next?’, we would love to hear from GLC community members who have any experiences as relates to this topic. Perhaps we can begin to gather a repository of stories that can help to show us more. Reach out to the Secretariat if you have a story to share.
We know that individual human psychology and collective culture, while inextricably connected, are not a clean-cut straightforward matter, and as a community we are well placed to bring our diverse collective experiences to build upon this learning, particularly to figure out next steps from what we’ve learned. Some of us may begin to grapple with the words we use and the questions we ask, some of us may very well decide to stop using the word ‘trauma’ altogether in contexts where this word is not found in indigenous vocabulary. But perhaps we can certainly begin to think about how this might impact our case management for example, because how might it? Or even our wider mental health support programmes?
The Secretariat will certainly be returning to this topic in the future and we will also be considering pathways to bring our collective experiences together to possibly collaboratively answer some of these questions.
Parting thought from the Secretariat
All of the above aside, having heard Adrian’s statement in the discussion on the Western hemisphere call, of all the possible outcomes from a GLC Monthly Learning Call, healing has to be at the top of the pile of ‘good things’ that our calls have brought about. It is certainly a statement that reinforces the value of our communal learning. It will be the first time that ‘healing’ has been listed on our logframe for our call outcomes!