Trauma, Ethics and the Political beyond PTSD

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 Acknowledgments vi 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 diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1980 triggered a resurgence of interest in trauma research, stimulating 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 clinical 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 cultural fields of enquiry such as literature research, holocaust studies, women s studies, and postcolonial research. Needless to say, these various disciplines and, on a larger scale, the clinical and cultural poles of trauma research, are characterized by radically divergent values, epistemological 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 empiricist 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 identified 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 scrutinized object in motion. When we consider the points at which these traditions diverge in their understanding of trauma, then the underlying 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 integration in the corpus of trauma knowledge is not merely the result of the different perspectives from which trauma is studied, but rather indicative 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 multitude 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 Aufhebung 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 independent 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 psychoanalytic 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 economical 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 understanding of trauma recovery as an ethical endeavor with political consequences, 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 creation 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 influence 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 Waiting 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