A student I knew well confided in me last year, reporting that she was experiencing emotional distress related to trauma from her early childhood and needed an extension on an assignment. I did not doubt the veracity of the student’s report, nor did I feel it was my role to probe further into her struggles. However in this case, she went on to share that she wasn’t sure what the nature of her own experience should be described as, but that someone else had defined what she experienced as trauma.
I do not want to cast shade on this student in any way. But her confusion highlights the ubiquitous use of the word trauma within our culture. A use that often seems far afield from the DSM-5-TR’s description of trauma that carries the potential of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as:
actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violation that occurs in one or more of the following ways: 1. Directly experiencing the traumatic event, 2. Witnessing, in person, the event as it occurred to others, 3. Learning that the traumatic event occurred to a close family member or close friend, and/or 4. Experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to the aversive details or aftermath of a traumatic event.
It turns out that trauma is among other harmful experiences, such as bullying, that are subject to concept creep — the tendency for concepts to broaden their meanings over time.
Concept creep has been described as both horizontal — when a notion expands to encompass new kinds of phenomena and vertical — when a notion expands to encompass less severe forms of the phenomenon. “Trauma” has actually grown in both directions. It has been widened to include new phenomena such as indirect exposure to traumatic events and deepened to describe less difficult situations. Notably, one study highlighted the way scholars use trauma has changed over time. In the 1980s, academic publications referred to trauma as involving physical injury, whereas more recent publications refer to trauma as “vicarious or indirect experiences of stressful events, including those that are relatively prevalent.”
The causes underlying an increased focus on harm-based concepts including “trauma” are likely myriad. For example, some point to the increased sensitivity to harm associated with liberal political orientations and others to a historical decline in violence which suggests that as we are less exposed to severe harm over time, our radar “may recalibrate so that previously innocuous experiences are seen as harmful.”
Expanding the things we define as traumatic may seem like mere semantics. Language certainly changes. Yet language also carries implications. On one hand, expanding trauma horizontally and vertically means that the principles related to trauma, especially those oriented toward healing, are applied to more people and more circumstances. For some, it offers a framework for understanding their emotional and behavioral responses that brings comfort and a clear path forward. People respond to traumatic events in individualized ways, with some having strong reactions to “less severe” events and vice versa. Including and empathizing with the experiences of more people who have been harmed can be beneficial, especially to people of faith who are eager to both prevent harm and respond to it with great sensitivity and care.
Yet there are risks of an expanded definition of trauma as well. Perhaps the biggest relates to the way that an expanded view of trauma can erode a healthy individual’s sense of agency as well as resiliency. Diagnostic labels of various sorts have been found to undermine perceived agency and the sense that an adverse situation can hold the potential for growth, a core aspect of a Christian approach to suffering. One research team writes,
The consequences of framing a personal event in one’s life story as a trauma are sure to be different from those of framing it instead as a crisis, a tragic misstep, a challenge, or a learning experience. People who believe they harbor a deep and defining psychic wound are less likely to have hopes for future recovery, less likely to recognize and exercise their agency, and more likely to embrace a victim identity.
Concept creep leads to more self-diagnosing, a double-edged sword as it can contribute to greater help-seeking but also to more catastrophizing and a lower perception of control. Broadening trauma’s definition also correlates with trivialization, which means that views toward serious manifestations of trauma are diminished. So instead of drawing more attention to trauma, a fuzzier definition can dilute societal attention, much like the boy who cried wolf.
What is the role of Christian educators who want to demonstrate empathy when encountering emotionally distressed students without reinforcing identities that thwart growth from adversity? While it is not our responsibility to assess the accuracy or even the nature of difficult events in a student’s life, it is our responsibility to pay close attention to those we teach and advise. At times, one encounters students who view their past circumstances as overwhelming their capacity to cope with life, including their academic work. These students clearly need help; most professors say they feel confident in their ability to make an appropriate referral in such cases. But at other times, one encounters students who need to focus less on what has happened to them and more on taking concrete steps forward. Steps like breaking down a complex assignment into bite-sized chunks. Looking at what they can do versus what they cannot do. Staying focused on tangible tasks in the present or hearing relevant examples of your own growth despite adversity gives students small but real boosts in self-efficacy and confidence.
Thankfully, my student was, on her own, questioning the use of the word trauma to describe her situation. This is not a call to minimize or discount events that cause our students distress, but a call to recognize that our students may use broad and imprecise terms that may not ultimately lead to their flourishing. In these cases, they may need our gentle nudges toward growth and resilience more than anything else.
