intergenerational trauma decision making

INTERGENERATIONAL TRAUMA DECISION MAKING SERIES

Intergenerational trauma was initially documented in 1960s and 1970s studies of the Holocaust.

Here’s a look at what we’ve learned so far. An initial field scan and literature review conducted in 2020 has revealed a diverse range of perspectives on intergenerational trauma through human stories and a variety of research-based disciplinary approaches. The program is exploring intergenerational trauma with the idea that understanding its impact might advance the well-being of individuals working toward social change and the communities they work with, as well as increase the impact of their work. With this in mind, a think tank launched by The Wellbeing Project and Georgetown University recently started a research program to better understand the connection between inner work (including self-inquiry, reflection, and self-care), outer change (work that individuals do to effect change in the world), and intergenerational trauma. Indeed, we must better understand trauma, discuss it, and integrate awareness of it into the culture of social change if we are to effectively address issues in which trauma and intergenerational trauma are factors. Until we better recognize the impact trauma has on individuals, organizations, and society, those working for social change will be limited in their ability to support human dignity, well-being, and resilience. There is also growing evidence that these experiences impair their ability to foster organizational and social change, and that supporting personal well-being lies at the heart of effectively addressing social challenges.

INTERGENERATIONAL TRAUMA DECISION MAKING SERIES

While researchers and others make appropriate distinctions between terms such as collective, historical, cultural, multigenerational, transgenerational, and generational trauma based on context, each expresses the phenomena of inherited or shared trauma.Īs previous articles in this series have discussed, change makers-those actively engaged in building a healthy and just society-not only face and address trauma among the populations they serve, but also commonly experience personal harm and trauma as a result of their work. It can also refer to mass suffering incurred by the kind of high death rates and economic and social shutdowns we’ve seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. The “demoralization, disorientation, and loss of connection” of survivors at the Buffalo Creek disaster of 1972 is just one example. Collective trauma, for example, is a shared traumatic experience that can negatively affect entire communities. Related concepts about the way sources, experiences, or effects of trauma include but are not limited to individuals also sheds light on the problem.

Currently, the American Psychological Association describes it as “a phenomenon in which the descendants of a person who has experienced a terrifying event show adverse emotions and behavioral reactions to the event that are similar to those of the person him/herself.” Intergenerational trauma can persist long after the memory of the initial traumatic event has faded. This kind of transfer, known as “intergenerational trauma,” isn’t new to human experience, but research on it didn’t begin in earnest until the 1960s. Research reveals that if nothing is done to mitigate the influence of traumatic experiences, individuals afflicted by today’s challenges may pass their trauma to the next generation. We are learning that trauma, or distress resulting from exposure to chronic or extreme mental or physical stress, is a common human experience with the power to spread across people and time. Systemic racism, climate change, the forced displacement of millions of people, a devastating global pandemic, and other widespread social issues highlight how far we are from “what ought to be.” And each of these problems requires urgent and sustained attention.Īt the same time, another problem is inhibiting and limiting sustained attention to these complex crises: trauma. In the 1860s, American abolitionist Frederick Douglass noted that people invested in social change “ endeavor to remove the contradiction” between “what ought to be” and “what is.” This contradiction seems ubiquitous today as social change advocates struggle to address multiple, overlapping crises.

Intergenerational trauma decision making