magazine issue 10 2024 / Issue 54

Trauma(tic) Media - What does it even look like? 

• written by Kristen Leer
• edited by Jana Dreston

Reviewers: Callie Sartain Kalny and Sameeksha Shukla

Understanding how trauma appears in media and impacts vulnerable communities is important for researchers from various fields to investigate. However, to begin to understand this specific type of media, we must ask not what is traumatic media but what traumatic media looks like. This article evaluates the spectrum of what, I term, trauma(tic) media looks like.

Trauma is hard to define because it exists in between who experiences and what provokes that experience. However, any reasonable definition of trauma must refer to both. At the most basic level, trauma refers to when one's safety has been taken away from them, which can leave a long-lasting psychological and physical imprint on them [1]. As scholars and everyday people utilize the term “trauma” to describe a collection of media we once described as violent media, we must preserve the utility of the concept, coming to be known as traumatic media, but must not acknowledge it without distinction. Recently, there has been some rhetorical inflation of the terms “trauma” and “traumatizing” to capture the experience of seeing harmful, graphic media. Though the intention is to exercise the introduction of trauma into communication, media, and digital studies by capturing a new severity of media type and impact, the effort can undermine the growing conceptualization of traumatic media.
As concern regarding the psychological impact of exposure to traumatic media continues to grow both within academic and everyday public discourse we must understand clearly and precisely what we mean when we deploy the term “traumatic media” so that we can more accurately understand its impact on individuals. What I propose can mitigate some of the conflation and confusion surrounding this type of media; it starts by asking the question not “What is traumatic media?” but “What does traumatic media look like?” This article attempts to contribute to the conversation by highlighting the struggle that comes with studying, understanding, and defining this type of media. But hopefully, by focusing on what I term trauma(tic) media responses we can not only more deeply and accurately understand traumatic media but prioritize the well-being of media users exposed to such content.

Trauma(tic) Media Responses

“One important aspect of studying trauma is that not everyone who experiences a traumatic event in their life is necessarily traumatized. Therefore, not everyone who sees harmful or violent media views it as traumatic.”

When initially delving into trying to understand the manifestations, characteristics, and impacts of traumatic media, there is a challenge in providing a precise definition. Definitions for other forms of media, like harmful or violent content, are readily accessible and utilized in studies. However, it became apparent through this struggle that one cannot completely and holistically define traumatic media without incorporating the responses that arise from such exposure. One important aspect of studying trauma is that not everyone who experiences a traumatic event in their life is necessarily traumatized. Therefore, not everyone who sees harmful or violent media views it as traumatic. Here we see traumatic media divorcing from violent media, but to understand how this occurs we must understand how individuals come to label media as traumatic versus violent and the differing media effects.

It must be acknowledged that trauma impacts communities differently; therefore, we must prioritize evaluating marginalized media communities’ experiences with traumatic media at the forefront of research design and inquiry not as an afterthought [2]. This is done by utilizing critical media effects to bridge the gap between media effects scholarship and critical cultural communication and advocate for greater reflexivity and nuance in theorizing about media effects while examining, validating, and affirming marginalized perspectives [3]. Identifying media that could be traumatic for users poses a challenge for researchers, as labeling media as traumatic or trauma relies on the media users’ internal processing of their exposure, engagement, and meaning-making with the content, influencing their psychological and physical responses.

Trauma(tic) media responses, refers to the psychological and physical effects individuals experience when they engage with media they receive as traumatic. The term “trauma(tic)” is used to encompass situations when the media content itself is seen as traumatic, as well as cases where the content may not be inherently traumatic but contains themes, narratives, or depictions of trauma that can still trigger psychological and physical stress responses. My research at this time focuses on digital nonfictional media and marginalized users’ engagement, curation, and reaction to said content. While my preliminary work primarily explores digital users' relationship to nonfictional digital media, further research must be conducted on traumatic media responses in relation to fictional media. The strength and type of response are influenced by the extent to which they can relate to the media content through shared identities and experiences. This approach considers individuals’ internal processing of media as traumatic but understands the power dynamics that unfolds when individuals encounter media that evokes a traumatic recall based on their own lived experiences.

“Trauma(tic) media responses rely on what users bring to their exposure […]”

To be clear, within this definition, there isn’t an implication that one form of trauma(tic) media is more significant than the other, but rather that the degree of impact depends on the factors that the individual brings to their media consumption and exposure, such as shared identities and experiences. Trauma(tic) media responses rely on what users bring to their exposure, whether that be intentional or incidental, positioning them to potentially interpret or react to the media as if it were traumatic. However, the challenge arises: How do we begin to define and test responses toward trauma(tic) media if we don’t know what it might look like to media users? Based on several studies I’m currently analyzing and given the reflexive nature of each project, I’ve potentially identified three ways in which trauma(tic) media is seen depending on digital users’ proximity and reliability to the trauma being depicted (shared identities and experiences) and the level of engagement they have with their digital media usage.

Three Possible Forms of Trauma(tic) Media

When outlining the forms trauma(tic) media might take, I don’t aim to disentangle or unravel the intersecting points, but rather, as Therí Pickens’ models, “to pinpoint the facets of their intertwining so that we might rest with the knots history and culture have created” [4]. We are at a historical moment with our media where individuals can capture, process, and memorialize trauma with their personal devices. The ‘knots’ allow us to see how responses indicate a spectrum of what can be considered trauma(tic) media but also allow us, as researchers, to identify specific patterns of processing and responses when exposed to such content. This allows me to argue that violent media doesn’t invariably equate to trauma(tic) media; instead, trauma(tic) media always holds some form of violence. This is where I believe the conflation of violent and traumatic media tends to exist: an act of violence that constitutes media being interpreted as violent but depending on the differing internal processing and responses is instead interpreted as traumatic. As the well-known book Body Keeps the Score emphasizes, “trauma isn’t just an event that took place…in the past; it is also the imprint left by that experience on mind, brain, and body” [5]. I’m bringing together three categories from existing bodies of trauma literature that inform ‘violence’ in trauma(tic) media and the spectrum in which trauma(tic) media looks like to various digital users: 1) graphic, which refers to violent media, 2), vicarious, which refers to vicarious trauma, and 3), absence, which refers to symbolic annihilation.

Graphic Trauma(tic) Media

Graphic trauma(tic) media involves visual depictions of physical aggression often portrayed through acts of corporeal violence by one or more individuals against others [6]. Increased exposure to graphic content, such as bloody images, through film/TV and online news, is linked to mental health symptoms like impaired functioning [7], increased anxiety, and stress over time [8]. Yet, in examining collective and/or cultural traumas, it is crucial to assess how media users sharing identities and experiences with the victims in media might face an elevated risk of negative impact. Exposure to online racial discrimination and traumatic events, like witnessing violence against one’s racial/ethnic group in videos or images, might contribute to not just to general traumatic stress but specifically to race-based traumatic stress. Graphic aspect to trauma(tic) media isn’t just the act or presence of violence but evidence of when trauma is brought to existence – where individuals are seeing the moment(s) in which trauma is witnessed, memorialized, and cemented in media content. Examples include live footage of events like 9/11, police violence, and shootings against African-American and Latino communities.

Vicarious Trauma(tic) Trauma

Vicarious trauma is seen originally as a “pervasive effect on the identity, world-view, psychological needs, beliefs, and memory systems of therapists who treat trauma survivors” [9]. Vicarious trauma is known to emerge among professionals (e.g., therapists, first responders, social workers) who, though not directly exposed to a traumatic event, work closely with trauma survivors and begin to experience post-traumatic stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms; this is labeled as secondary traumatic stress disorder and/or compassion fatigue [10]. When thinking about digital/medoa aspects of vicarious trauma(tic) media, researchers have speculated that just witnessing violence on digital media is a form of vicarious trauma. But there is more to this framework – it isn’t just seeing violence, but hearing, reading, and seeing the testimonies of those documenting their trauma on a digital platform that can evoke vicarious trauma stress symptoms. In other words, vicarious trauma(tic) media doesn’t necessarily show explicit, gory, or graphically violent visuals. Instead, it is the words, voices, emotions, and narratives conveyed that this media depicts. For instance, therapists might not directly see violence happen to their patients but hearing about how their patients experience violence, and consistent exposure to that narrative, is what leads to developing secondary traumatic stress symptoms. This might exist similarly for media users.

Absent Trauma(tic) Media

Symbolic annihilation is traditionally described as the absence of representation, or underrepresentation, of some group of people in the media based on their race, sex, socio-economic status, etc., and is a means of maintaining social inequality [11] and erasing groups from public consciousness [12]. On social media, it isn’t just the images that hold symbolic annihilation but the platform's design, including features, affordances, and functions. When considering the concept of symbolic annihilation of trauma, it is important to recognize that digital platforms both perpetuate and challenge this phenomenon through their use of images and design. I argue that within trauma(tic) media, it isn’t just the physical absence of representation of a group of people (trauma survivors) but the absence of aspects of their lives (joy, happiness, milestones, childhood, etc.) because of the trauma they are going through that creates stress responses from those witnessing this absence, lost, and safety taken away. Examples include children sharing dreams in a warzone, images depicting life before sexual assault, and digital archives of victims’ lives, which go beyond showcasing explicit violence. These posts emphasize resilience, personhood, and hope often overlooked by mainstream media. Despite the lack of explicit violence/harm, viewers are susceptible to negative psychological, emotional, and physical responses because they are witnessing the disruption of happiness, well-being, dreams, desires, and the future of those affected by trauma.

Conclusion

This article introduced the concept of trauma(tic) media responses, where this framework acknowledges the nuanced nature of trauma manifestation in media, where the internal processing of media received as trauma(tic) plays a crucial role in shaping individuals' responses. The examination of three forms of trauma(tic) media sheds light on the diverse ways individuals identify and respond to digital media content. Graphic Trauma(tic) Media involves explicit violence, while Vicarious Trauma(tic) Media extends beyond visuals to encompass words, voices, emotions, and narratives. Absent Trauma(tic) Media explores the impact of symbolic annihilation, where the absence or underrepresentation of certain trauma aspects in media can still induce stress responses. I underscore the significance of individual perspectives in shaping both what is considered trauma(tic) media and the responses to it, highlighting the degree of impact varies based on individual factors. Ultimately, this contributes to the ongoing discourse on traumatic media, urging scholars and practitioners to consider the multifaceted nature of trauma and its intersections with digital media consumption and engagement. By prioritizing how individuals interpret and respond to trauma(tic) media, we can navigate the knots, created by history, culture, or in this case trauma, more holistically.

REFERENCES

[1] B. Van Der Kolk, The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. New York, New York: Penguin Books, 2015.
[2] D. P. Relihan, N. M. Jones, E. A. Holman, and R. C. Silver, “Shared social identity and media transmission of trauma,” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 11609, Jul. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-33898-2.
[3] S. Ramasubramanian and O. O. Banjo, “Critical Media Effects Framework: Bridging Critical Cultural Communication and Media Effects through Power, Intersectionality, Context, and Agency,” Journal of Communication, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 379–400, May 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa014.
[4] Therí Alyce Pickens, Black madness mad blackness. Durham, N.C. Duke University Press, 2019, 11.
[5] B. Van Der Kolk, The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. New York, New York: Penguin Books, 2015, 21.
[6] L. R. Huesmann, “The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research,” Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. S6–S13, Dec. 2007, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.005.
[7] E. A. Holman, D. R. Garfin, P. Lubens, and R. C. Silver, “Media Exposure to Collective Trauma, Mental Health, and Functioning: Does It Matter What You See?,” Clinical Psychological Science, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 111–124, Oct. 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619858300.
[8] R. C. Silver, E. A. Holman, J. P. Andersen, M. Poulin, D. N. McIntosh, and V. Gil-Rivas, “Mental- and Physical-Health Effects of Acute Exposure to Media Images of the September 11, 2001, Attacks and the Iraq War,” Psychological Science, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1623–1634, Aug. 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612460406.
‌[9] L. Pearlman and K. W. Saakvitne, “Treating therapists with vicarious traumatization and secondary traumatic stress disorders,” Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized , pp. 150–177, 1995.
‌[10] R. E. Adams, J. A. Boscarino, and C. R. Figley, “Compassion fatigue and psychological distress among social workers: A validation study.,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 103–108, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.1.103.
[11] G. Gerbner and L. Gross, “Living With Television: The Violence Profile,” 1976. https://web.asc.upenn.edu/gerbner/Asset.aspx?assetID=276
‌[12] R. R. Means Coleman and E. Yochim, “Symbolic Annihilation,” 2008. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecs124

Image 1: Author
Image 2: teeveesee via pixabay