My research focuses on interpersonal violence exposure (e.g. witnessing domestic violence, child sexual abuse, dating violence, child maltreatment, emotional/psychological abuse) and psychosocial outcomes in youth. I think this conversation is interesting because it highlights the care we take in my lab when using the terms violence exposure, trauma, family chaos/conflict, adverse childhood events (ACEs), and so on. Compared to the term “violence exposure,” I use the term, "trauma” very rarely and only do so when referring to an event(s) in the context of PTSD symptomology, including trauma as defined by criterion A, and a possible or actual PTSD diagnosis.
As it relates to defining "trauma," I think an important point to remember is that exposure to events, including ones articulated in criterion A, do not inherently lead to a PTSD diagnosis. If no diagnosis, was the event still traumatic in that case? Alternately, exposure to other events not explicitly defined by criterion A including emotional abuse, racial violence, or even peer victimization may precede and be related to any number of post-traumatic stress symptoms, and even meet criteria for a diagnosis if the event met criterion A on its face. If yes to symptoms and functional impairment and no to criterion A, was the event traumatic?
And perhaps this is exclusively semantic where particular events (in the context of the diagnosis) are defined as trauma and as the suffix indicates, we mean of or related to trauma (all criteria) when using the word “traumatic” to describe events.
Ultimately, I think the widespread use of the word trauma/traumatic is a reflection of our (general public and professionals) desire to truly capture and convey the unique seriousness and harm of violence exposure, including the violence of systematic marginalization, for example. And of course there’s still the question of ongoing exposure or exposure without an index event, or exposure to many discrete and/or ongoing events and the conceptual difficulty of abstracting only one. I know that no one is arguing this, but I can imagine that some might feel that the limitation of “trauma” implies that anything that falls outside of that is less serious, harmful, or concerning. We know this is untrue given the abundance of evidence that indicates that an accumulation of ACEs and cumulative (and single event) violence exposure are associated with subsequently negative outcomes on many indices of physical and psychological health across the lifespan.
That said, if we're limiting use of the term trauma to only those events that exist within the context of a PTSD diagnosis, and criterion A as currently defined, fine I guess. Although I don’t see the harm in thinking more critically about actual or threatened death, for direct exposure, and potentially broadening our scope based on that. For example, in thinking about broader systems of power, I find that actual or threatened death is the logical end of emotional or psychological abuse, oppression, neglect, bullying, and so on.
All of which is to say, yes, I think systemic racial oppression can be considered traumatic and no, getting a poor grade when used to better cannot be.
