Trauma, Ethics and the Political beyond PTSD: The Dislocations of the Real

204 Pages·2016·1.005 MB·English

by  Gregory Bistoen (auth.)

Trauma, Ethics and the Political beyond PTSD
This page intentionally left blank
Trauma, Ethics and the
Political beyond PTSD
The Dislocations of the Real
Gregory Bistoen
Ghent University, Belgium
Palgrave
macmillan
TRAUMA, ETHICS AND THE POLITICAL BEYOND PTSD
Copyright © Gregory Bistoen, 2016.
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2016 978-1-137-50084-7
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this
publication may be made without written permission.
No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted
save with written permission. In accordance with the provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence
permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency,
Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
First published 2016 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
The author has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire, RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of Nature America, Inc.,
One New York Plaza, Suite 4500 New York, NY 10004–1562.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
ISBN 978-1-349-69892-9
E-PDF ISBN: 978-1-137-50085-4
DOI: 10.1057/9781137500854
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available from the
Library of Congress
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
A catalogue record for the book is available from the British Library
Contents
Preface vi
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction 1
Part I The Biomedical Approach to Trauma
and the Ethics of Human Rights
1 Individualization, Decontextualization and Depoliticization
in the Biomedical PTSD-Approach to Trauma 11
2 A Critique of the Ethics of Human Rights in Its Relation
to PTSD 34
Part II The Dislocations of the Real
3 The Lacanian Concept of the Real and the Psychoanalytical
Take on Trauma 53
4 The Lacanian Concept of the Real in Relation to the Ethics of
Psychoanalysis 83
5 The Lacanian Concept of the Real in Relation to Politics and
Collective Trauma 104
6 Act and Event: Ethics and the Political in Trauma 131
Notes 174
References 177
Index 189
v
Preface
The inclusion of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as an official diag-
nosis in the D iagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)
in 1980 triggered a resurgence of interest in trauma research, stimu-
lating the production of a huge amount of empirical data and a range of
theoretical innovations over the past three decades. Interestingly, these
intensive research efforts stem from a variety of scientific disciplines,
which, according to Vincenzo Di Nicola (2012a), can be roughly divided
into two large traditions. On the one hand, psychological trauma has, of
course, been extensively studied from an explicitly c linical perspective.
This research pole encompasses disciplines such as the neurosciences,
cognitive and behavioral psychology, clinical psychiatry, psychoanalysis
and so on. On the other hand, and rather atypically for a psychiatric
disorder, trauma has increasingly become a topic of interest for c ultural
fields of enquiry such as literature research, holocaust studies, women’s
studies, and postcolonial research. Needless to say, these various disci-
plines and, on a larger scale, the clinical and cultural poles of trauma
research, are characterized by radically divergent values, epistemolog-
ical assumptions, methodologies, beliefs and aims – to a degree that
it would be justified to speak of two separate ‘trauma communities’,
each with a distinctive and irreducible understanding of trauma, despite
their commonalities and interrelations (Di Nicola, 2012b). Whereas the
clinical research pole is largely associated with a positivist and empiri-
cist approach to trauma rooted in a biomedical model, the cultural pole
is more influenced by social constructionist and postmodern scientific
paradigms.
The combined research efforts of the past three decades can therefore
be said to have given birth to a body of knowledge that, with a wink to
Jacques Lacan’s (1949) mirror stage theory, is best described as a corps
morcelé : an amorphous, split or divided corpus that cannot be identi-
fied as a whole when viewed from the vantage point of whichever of its
constituent parts. In other words, the sprawling knowledge of trauma
that is produced in these various fields of inquiry cannot be integrated
into a single, unified discourse due to the lack of a point of reference
from where such an operation could occur. As Dominick LaCapra (2001)
observed: ‘no genre or discipline “owns” trauma as a problem or can
provide definitive boundaries for it’ (p. 96).
vi
Preface vii
My own research starts from the observed tension between cultural and
clinical accounts of trauma. Because of the distinct perspectives on the
same phenomenon, their juxtaposition offers somewhat of a ‘parallax
view’; the shift between both vantage points apparently puts the scru-
tinized object in motion. When we consider the points at which these
traditions diverge in their understanding of trauma, then the under-
lying presuppositions of both, which often remain implicit, suddenly
light up with great clarity. Moreover, it has been argued that the gap
that separates both approaches discloses something about the studied
phenomenon itself: from this point of view, the observed lack of integra-
tion in the corpus of trauma knowledge is not merely the result of the
different perspectives from which trauma is studied, but rather indica-
tive of a split or gap in the concept of trauma itself (Di Nicola, 2012a).
Every attempt to describe and localize this gap, for instance by means of
the introduction of a dichotomy (for example, cultural versus clinical;
moral versus theoretical (Fassin & Rechtman, 2009); mimetic versus
antimetic (Leys, 2000)) brings a degree of order to the confusing multi-
tude of trauma studies and theories, without however exhausting the
tensions internal to trauma. As Di Nicola shows, each posited dichotomy
is ‘shifting, porous and unstable’ (2012a, p. 103): it will always give rise
to cases that cannot be allocated to either of the proposed poles of the
dichotomy. Psychoanalytic theory is a good case in point: although it
is first and foremost a clinical theory, its insights are often adopted in
cultural work on trauma.
It follows that in the confrontation with this gap, my goal is not to
attempt an impossible Hegelian-style A ufhebung of the tension between
the thesis and its antithesis. Nor is it even to aid in the construction
of a ‘common ground’ or bridge between them. The idea is rather that
the inter-implication of both traditions disrupts their respective inde-
pendent flows; it lays bare a number of aporias that are otherwise easily
missed. The goal is ultimately to subvert a number of distinctions and
divergences that separate both traditions, for example the purported
discrepancy between clinical–therapeutic and sociopolitical goals in
clinical and cultural accounts of trauma respectively. In line with the
general rationale of this project, I believe that the disruption caused by
juxtaposing both outlooks is a motor force for theoretical innovation.
This book focuses on trauma in its relation to politics and ethics. It
is my contention that recent philosophical analyses of the dynamics
of rupture in sociopolitical change can be put to use to incorporate the
political dimension in our understanding of trauma. Whereas trauma is
ordinarily understood as a rupture on a psychological, intra-individual
viii Preface
level, these philosophical theories make use of Lacanian psychoana-
lytic theory to comprehend how rupture appears on a trans-individual,
collective or societal level – and how this constitutes a possibility and
a prerequisite for the creative invention of new political or econom-
ical structures. Whereas current psychological trauma approaches have
been criticized for obscuring and neglecting the sociopolitical aspects
of trauma recovery, philosophical theories of rupture are at risk of
downplaying the suffering of those caught up in movements of radical
social change – in favor of an emphasis on the creative possibilities of
such disruptive moments. I believe the choice between a psychological
and a sociological level of analysis and intervention to be a false one.
Through a discussion of Lacanian psychoanalysis, I hope to show where
this dichotomy becomes unstable, and how this can broaden our under-
standing of trauma recovery as an ethical endeavor with political conse-
quences, beyond a medico-technical framework.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the University of Ghent and the Special Research
Fund for giving me the chance to devote my time and energy to the crea-
tion of this book, and the people at Palgrave Macmillan for their belief
in this project and the professional assistance during all the stages of the
production process. Without the thought-provoking, challenging works
of Jacques Lacan, Alain Badiou, Slavoj Žižek, Alenka Zupancic, Adrian
Johnston, Charles Shepherdson, Patrick Bracken, Yannis Stavrakakis, Jan
De Vos and many others, the main idea for this book could never have
been conceived. Although these authors cannot be aware of their influ-
ence on me, I insist on formally thanking them for providing me with
the building blocks to construct my arguments.
The members of my doctoral guidance committee have been a huge
support in writing this book, as they critically examined my texts
and introduced me to a multitude of inspiring studies in the fields of
trauma, psychoanalysis and philosophy: Stijn Vanheule, Stef Craps, Paul
Verhaeghe, and Ignaas Devisch. Furthermore, the feedback given by my
colleagues at the Department of Psychoanalysis and Clinical Consulting
urged me to continuously think through the matters at hand in all
of their complexity. Likewise, Thibault Van Lysebetten, Tim Wijnant,
Lander Vander Linden, Mihalis Mentinis and Bert Collage have been
important touchstones during this enterprise. Els Vandenbussche has
expertly provided me with practical and logistic support. Many thanks
also go to Bianca Raes, who allowed me to use her painting W aiting for
the cover of this book. Last but not least, I could not have finished this
book without the endless patience, love and support of Petra Souffriau.
A part of Chapter 6 is based on a previously published article: Bistoen,
G., Vanheule, S. & Craps, S. (2014). ‘Badiou’s Theory of the Event and
the Politics of Trauma Recovery’, Theory & Psychology , 24(6), 830–51.

ix