The Necessity of a Solid "I"
I mentioned it in earlier blog posts already and now that I’ve read a respective book, I can only re-emphasize: the theory of psycho traumatology is an incredibly insightful, logical, and highly topical explanation of how we function as individuals and therewith shaping our societies.
In his book, Who am I in a traumatised society, psychologist Franz Ruppert draws a catching, intuitive, and plausible picture of the state of our psyche(s) and the necessity to take good care of it to live a thriving and empowered life. “It is a great illusion to assume we have a healthy psyche per se. If you want to have healthy psyche, you need to take care of it accordingly.”
Now in talking about trauma, Ruppert does only secondarily refer to the common states that we refer to as trauma (such as PTSD). In fact, he claims, that those traumas would not exist, if there wasn’t a precursor to it, established in earliest childhood and in many, many of us. He calls the beginning of all trauma the trauma of identity and what he means by that is the all-too-common fact that many of us have not been able and enabled to develop a healthy, steady, and safe “I” when we were little. Neither our parents were capable of providing us with such (based on their own lack of a that “I”) nor society educated us along those lines.
Here is where Ruppert draws the connection: The traumatised individual builds and maintains systems (ranging from personal relationships, family to work and politics) that keep the trauma of identity alive. Otherwise, many more of us might question the way our economy works, our workplace is structured, and our (foreign) politics are formed (aka war, isolation, excessive nationalism). “In traumatised collectives one can often find a dogged adherence to old traditions and values, the elevation of one’s own religion, ancestor worship and cult of the death. (…) The more one resigns one’s own “I” [identity] (…), the more one clings to a collective substitute “I”.
In going back to the issue of trauma, it is defined as a damage that one experiences that he/she cannot cope with based on his/her current physical and psychological resources. In looking at it like that, it becomes clearer as to why traumas are not reserved for those suffering through war, abuse, or serious accidents: It also and specifically applies to the helpless and dependent newborn and toddler that receives signals of aversion, neglect, carelessness by their caretaker. And this in turn happens way more subconsciously than we’d like to think.
Based on my own bonding experience with my parents and as a mom-to-be, I can instinctively feel the struggle that parents might have in giving their child the space and time that it needs. Not because we don’t want to but because we struggle with our own needs and emotions, which we have not sufficiently learned to express.
What Ruppert suggests for taking care of your children is the very same thing that each of us can do as traumatised grown ups: to get the validation (as grown ups from ourselves) that it is ok to follow one’s needs, to value yourself as important, to express your honest feelings, to not take responsibility for others’ needs and conflicts, and to trust yourself to be able to deal with your own fears and aggressions. “When kids are able to take care of their own wellbeing, they become socially competent. (…) Each day they grow psychologically more mature and as a adolescents and adults won’t have to constantly proof their own worthiness and vilify others.”
There is more context to Ruppert’s theory ranging from the trauma of identity to the trauma of love, trauma of sexuality, and trauma of perpetration (as the victim turning into the perpetrator), which often happen as a consequence (and in this sequence) because we have been turned into victims without a stable “I” from the get go.
However, I will leave the aspects and facades of this trauma sequence out for now, turning the attention to what I find most conclusive and interesting about Ruppert’s approach: that of the traumatised individual contributing to the traumatised society.
“If you look it at closely, all major social problems can be reduced to childhood problems. (…) The loss of the “I” as a reference point and our focus on the external (especially through our emphasis on competition in all spheres of life) are perceived as normal and not further questioned. (…) Therefore we assume it is part of our nature to lead wars and to be constantly ready to go to war. Hence, psycho traumas get out of hand in societies. (…) People are then part of the mass and not able to regulate themselves, since they have never learned how to.”
Adding the psychological perspective to the mix of a spiritual perspective on taking responsibility for oneself and hence others, just further proves my deep conviction that it is only the individual that can truly bring about the change in our interactions, collaboration, being together as humanity.
The autonomy of the individual needs to be re-established and will most likely at one point or the other put a lot of our systems and structures into question. It will be the natural way of changing consciousness.