Schwab (2004) wrote about trauma from the complicated position of oppressors. Schwab opened up about the ghosts in his family tied to the violence of his hometown, in post-war Germany. Schwab emphasized the importance of reparative work and open discussion to address the ghosts that many families keep after traumatic periods of history. Ultimately, Schwab’s piece challenges the binaristic categories of oppressor and sufferer by detailing the legacies of trauma for those on seemingly opposite sides of violence. Below were some thought-provoking quotes from this article:
186 - “Most cultures share a tendency to silence traumatic histories. Traumatic amnesia seems to become inscribed as cultural practice. Yet, trauma can never be completely silenced since its effects continue to operate unconsciously. Suggesting that the silence intended to cover up a traumatic event or history only leads to its unconscious transmission, Abraham speaks of a haunting that spans generations. “
188 - “The damages and cultural deformations of these violent histories of colonialism, imperialism, war, genocide and slavery manifest themselves on both sides of the divide, and only if both sides work through the legacies of these histories can the vicious cycle of repetition be disrupted. Recent postcolonial theories as well as critical race theories have argued in a similar vein.”
Questions: I enjoyed reading this piece because of how it challenged static notions of aggressor and oppressed/victim/survivor. In times of collective or systemic violence, there are multiple registers of trauma. It actually reminded me of a recent article I was reading about PTSD in those who have administered the death penalty or were involved in the administration of it. What are the multiplicitous traumas that arise out of systemic, state violence? What is at stake by using binaristic frames (oppressor and victim) for understanding systemic violence?
